Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Verdicts, General And Special, Edson R. Sunderland
Verdicts, General And Special, Edson R. Sunderland
Articles
The most remarkable thing about this case of Georgia v. Brailsford is that a matter of such elementary importance in the daily administration of the law, after being announced in so dramatic a way by the Supreme Court of the United States at the very threshold of its career, could have dropped into oblivion for a hundred years only to be repudiated in a way hardly less dramatic by a sharply divided court. The controversy here disclosed goes to the very heart of the jury system as it has been developed by the common law and is still almost universally …
Should A Correct Verdict Be Set Aside Because The Jury Failed To Follow Erroneous Instructions?, Edson R. Sunderland
Should A Correct Verdict Be Set Aside Because The Jury Failed To Follow Erroneous Instructions?, Edson R. Sunderland
Articles
One of the common grounds of a new trial is that the verdict is contrary to law. What law is meant,--the law as it really is, or the law that was given to the jury by the court's instruction? Most cases hold to the latter view. It is the duty of the jury to take the law from the court, whether the court in so giving it is right or wrong. Hence, the jury violate their duty if they fail to follow instructions, even if the instructions are wrong, and a verdict based on a breach of the jury's duty …
The Scintilla Rule Of Evidence, Edson R. Sunderland
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.
Witness--Competency Of An Allopathic Expert In The Field Of Homeopathy--Opinion On Very Fact The Jury Must Determine, Victor H. Lane
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 …