Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
What Happened: Confronting Confrontation In The Wake Of Bullcoming, Bryant, And Crawford., Dibrell Waldrip, Sara M. Berkeley
What Happened: Confronting Confrontation In The Wake Of Bullcoming, Bryant, And Crawford., Dibrell Waldrip, Sara M. Berkeley
St. Mary's Law Journal
Crawford v. Washington and its progeny demonstrate the difficulty of delineating both the core and the perimeter of the Confrontation Clause. Crawford abrogated Ohio v. Roberts, forcing trial lawyers to re-evaluate the use of various types of hearsay formerly admitted upon a finding of adequate “indicia of reliability.” Later the Court issued two decisions further altering the contours of Confrontation Clause jurisprudence. Michigan v. Bryant and Bullcoming v. New Mexico. With these options, the old Roberts “indicia of reliability” test transformed into the new “primary purpose” test to identify certain testimonial statements. By significantly altering the contours of Confrontation Clause …
Accountants' Accountability To Nonclients In Texas., Jessica P. Gomez
Accountants' Accountability To Nonclients In Texas., Jessica P. Gomez
St. Mary's Law Journal
This Comment proposes that accountants be held liable to any foreseeable user of their work product to ensure the deterrence of negligence on their part. Currently, the three main common law theories concerning whether nonclients can sue accountants for negligence are: (1) the privity rule; (2) the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552; and (3) the foreseeability standard. Many states follow the Restatement approach entitled “Information Negligently Supplied for the Guidance of Others.” Texas imposes liability on accountants but fails to extend protections to third parties who rely upon the accuracy of financial statements. Further, Texas liability does not expose …