Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Witness--Competency Of An Allopathic Expert In The Field Of Homeopathy--Opinion On Very Fact The Jury Must Determine, Victor H. Lane Jan 1919

Witness--Competency Of An Allopathic Expert In The Field Of Homeopathy--Opinion On Very Fact The Jury Must Determine, Victor H. Lane

Articles

Van Sickle v. Doolittle, (Ia., 1918), 169 N. W. 141, was an action for malpractice against a physician of the homeopathic school of medicine. Upon the trial, a physician of the allopathic school was called, and after testifying that he was unskilled in the science of homeopathy, was allowed to testify that the treatment shown to have been given to the patient by defendant, would produce no physiological effect, and that proper treatment required the giving of such medicines as would produce such effect. This was held error upon the ground that the defendant was called to treat the patient …


The Scintilla Rule Of Evidence, Edson R. Sunderland Jan 1919

The Scintilla Rule Of Evidence, Edson R. Sunderland

Articles

In analyzing the reasons why "trial by jury has declined to such an extent that it has come in many cases to be an avowed maxim of professional action,--a good case is for the court; a bad case is for the jury,"-JUDGE DILLON, in his LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE, pp. 130-2, credits "the false principle known as the scintilla doctrine" with a large degree of responsibility.


Juvenile Courts And Privileged Communications, Evans Holbrook Jan 1919

Juvenile Courts And Privileged Communications, Evans Holbrook

Articles

In the case of Lindsey v. People, (Colo., 1919) 181 Pac. 531, the Supreme Court of Colorado has held that Judge Lindsey of the Juvenile Court of Denver could not refuse to testify as to a communication made to him by a child who was at the time of the communication suspected of crime and against whom proceedings were later taken in the Juvenile Court. The decision was by a vote of four to three, and a vigorous dissenting opinion was written by Justice Bailey and concurred in by Justices Scott and Allen.