Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Seattle University School of Law (194)
- University of Michigan Law School (72)
- Cornell University Law School (19)
- University of Richmond (13)
- West Virginia University (13)
-
- Pepperdine University (12)
- University of Oklahoma College of Law (11)
- UIC School of Law (10)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (9)
- Penn State Dickinson Law (8)
- Roger Williams University (8)
- Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (8)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (8)
- Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University (7)
- University of Maine School of Law (7)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (7)
- Brigham Young University Law School (5)
- Brooklyn Law School (5)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (5)
- St. Mary's University (5)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (5)
- University at Buffalo School of Law (5)
- Duke Law (4)
- Florida International University College of Law (4)
- Texas A&M University School of Law (4)
- The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law (4)
- University of Arkansas Little Rock (4)
- University of Kentucky (4)
- Loyola University Chicago, School of Law (3)
- The University of Akron (3)
- Keyword
-
- Evidence (56)
- Discovery (31)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (22)
- Civil procedure (20)
- Federal Rules of Evidence (20)
-
- Expert testimony (16)
- Hearsay (15)
- Witnesses (15)
- Law (14)
- Civil Procedure (13)
- Admissibility (11)
- Trial (10)
- Juries (9)
- Testimony (9)
- Trials (9)
- Daubert (8)
- Disclosure (8)
- Litigation (8)
- Pleading (8)
- Technology (8)
- Courts (7)
- First Amendment (7)
- SFFA (7)
- Affirmative Action (6)
- ESG (6)
- Expert evidence (6)
- Expert witnesses (6)
- Jury (6)
- Legislation (6)
- Procedure (6)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Seattle University Law Review (194)
- Michigan Law Review (51)
- Cornell Law Faculty Publications (19)
- Articles (14)
- West Virginia Law Review (13)
-
- Faculty Scholarship (12)
- University of Richmond Law Review (11)
- UIC Law Review (10)
- Faculty Publications (8)
- Pepperdine Law Review (7)
- Villanova Law Review (1956 - ) (7)
- Maine Law Review (6)
- Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press (5)
- BYU Law Review (5)
- Buffalo Law Review (5)
- Faculty Articles (5)
- Roger Williams University Law Review (5)
- Vanderbilt Law Review (5)
- Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present) (4)
- Kentucky Law Journal (4)
- Nevada Supreme Court Summaries (4)
- Oklahoma Law Review (4)
- Scholarly Works (4)
- St. Mary's Law Journal (4)
- Washington and Lee Law Review (4)
- Book Chapters (3)
- Faculty Working Papers (3)
- Life of the Law School (1993- ) (3)
- Loyola University Chicago Law Journal (3)
- Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal (3)
- Publication Type
Articles 331 - 360 of 524
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
The Amended Attorney-Client Privilege In Oklahoma: A Misstep In The Right Direction, Robert A. Brown
The Amended Attorney-Client Privilege In Oklahoma: A Misstep In The Right Direction, Robert A. Brown
Oklahoma Law Review
No abstract provided.
Rethinking Jurisdictional Discovery Under The Hague Evidence Convention, Kathleen B. Gilchrist
Rethinking Jurisdictional Discovery Under The Hague Evidence Convention, Kathleen B. Gilchrist
Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law
When a federal court in the United States compels the discovery of information located abroad to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the defendant, the court can apply the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Hague Evidence Convention. This Note argues that the approach taken by most courts--applying the balancing test formulated by the Supreme Court in Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. U.S. District Court and favoring application of the Federal Rules--is misguided. Courts should apply the Evidence Convention more often in jurisdictional discovery disputes. They can do so under the existing legal framework with one of three holdings: …
An Unsettling Outcome: Why The Florida Supreme Court Was Wrong To Ban All Settlement Evidence In Saleeby V Rocky Elson Construction, Inc., 3 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 2009), Michael L. Seigel, Robert J. Hauser, Allison D. Sirica
An Unsettling Outcome: Why The Florida Supreme Court Was Wrong To Ban All Settlement Evidence In Saleeby V Rocky Elson Construction, Inc., 3 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 2009), Michael L. Seigel, Robert J. Hauser, Allison D. Sirica
UF Law Faculty Publications
It is rare that a court as sophisticated as the Florida Supreme Court casually makes a fundamental mistake in an important area of the law. Unfortunately, Saleeby v. Rocky Elson Construction, Inc., 3 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 2009) represents one of these unusual instances. The Court was faced with a simple question: may evidence pertaining to a prior settlement be offered at trial when it is relevant to something other than liability or the invalidity or amount of the pending claim. The universal answer under both federal law and the law of other states is yes, as long as …
Let My Love Open The Door: The Case For Extending Marital Privileges To Unmarried Cohabitants, Julia Cardozo
Let My Love Open The Door: The Case For Extending Marital Privileges To Unmarried Cohabitants, Julia Cardozo
University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class
No abstract provided.
Hearings, Mark Spottswood
Hearings, Mark Spottswood
Faculty Working Papers
This article explores a constantly recurring procedural question: When is fact-finding improved by a live hearing, and when would it be better to rely on a written record? Unfortunately, when judges, lawyers, and rulemakers consider this issue, they are led astray by the widely shared—but false—assumption that a judge can best determine issues of credibility by viewing the demeanor of witnesses while they are testifying. In fact, a large body of scientific evidence indicates that judges are more likely to be deceived by lying or mistaken witnesses when observing their testimony in person than if the judges were to review …
New Pleading, New Discovery, Scott Dodson
New Pleading, New Discovery, Scott Dodson
Michigan Law Review
Pleading in federal court has a new narrative. The old narrative was one of notice, with the goal of broad access to the civil justice system. New Pleading, after the landmark Supreme Court cases of Twombly and Iqbal, is focused on factual sufficiency, with the purpose of screening out meritless cases that otherwise might impose discovery costs on defendants. The problem with New Pleading is that factual insufficiency often is a poor proxy for meritlessness. Some plaintifs lack sufficient factual knowledge of the elements of their claims not because the claims lack merit but because the information they need is …
Civil Practice And Procedure, Hon. Jane Marum Roush
Civil Practice And Procedure, Hon. Jane Marum Roush
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Death Of The American Trial, Robert P. Burns
The Death Of The American Trial, Robert P. Burns
Faculty Working Papers
This short essay is a summary of my assessment of the meaning of the "vanishing trial" phenomenon. It addresses the obvious question: "So what?" It first briefly reviews the evidence of the trial's decline. It then sets out the steps necessary to understand the political and social signficance of our vastly reducing the trial's importance among our modes of social ordering. The essay serves as the Introduction to a book, The Death of the American Trial, soon to be published by the University of Chicago Press.
Silencing Tory Bowen: The Legal Implications Of Word Bans In Rape Trials, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 215 (2009), Randah Atassi
Silencing Tory Bowen: The Legal Implications Of Word Bans In Rape Trials, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 215 (2009), Randah Atassi
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Bull’S-Eye View Of Cooperation In Discovery, Steven S. Gensler
Bull’S-Eye View Of Cooperation In Discovery, Steven S. Gensler
Faculty Articles
No abstract provided.
Preventing And Reducing Costs And Burdens Associated With E-Discovery: The 2006 Amendments To The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Jessica Debono
Preventing And Reducing Costs And Burdens Associated With E-Discovery: The 2006 Amendments To The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Jessica Debono
Mercer Law Review
On December 1, 2006, amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the "Rules") regarding the discovery of electronically stored information went into effect. This form of discovery is referred to as ediscovery. The 2006 amendments have significant effect on the obligations and responsibilities of parties, their lawyers, and the courts when dealing with discovery of electronically stored information. Specifically, the 2006 amendments affect how companies maintain, preserve, and produce electronically stored information. First, electronically stored information is now included in permissible discovery. Second, parties are required to "meet and confer" about the discovery of electronically stored information at the …
Proportionality In The Post-Hoc Analysis Of Pre-Litigation Preservation Decisions, Paul W. Grimm, Michael D. Berman, Conor R. Crowley, Leslie Wharton
Proportionality In The Post-Hoc Analysis Of Pre-Litigation Preservation Decisions, Paul W. Grimm, Michael D. Berman, Conor R. Crowley, Leslie Wharton
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Discovery About Discovery: Does The Attorney-Client Privilege Protect All Attorney-Client Communications Relating To The Preservation Of Potentially Relevant Information?, Paul W. Grimm, Michael D. Berman, Leslie Wharton, Jenna Beck, Conor R. Crowley
Discovery About Discovery: Does The Attorney-Client Privilege Protect All Attorney-Client Communications Relating To The Preservation Of Potentially Relevant Information?, Paul W. Grimm, Michael D. Berman, Leslie Wharton, Jenna Beck, Conor R. Crowley
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Managing Preservation Obligations After The 2006 Federal E-Discovery Amendments, Thomas Y. Allman
Managing Preservation Obligations After The 2006 Federal E-Discovery Amendments, Thomas Y. Allman
Richmond Journal of Law & Technology
The 2006 E-Discovery Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (2006 Amendments or the Amendments) do not directly address the onset or scope of preservation obligations. As noted in the September 2005 Report of the Standing Committee of the Judicial Conference recommending adoption of the 2006 Amendments, preservation obligations “arise from independent sources of law” and are dependent upon “the substantive law of each jurisdiction.” However, the Amendments have a major impact on how parties must analyze and execute preservation obligations involving electronically stored information (“ESI”).
The 2006 Amendments To The Rules Of Civil Procedure: Accessible And Inaccessible Electronic Information Storage Devices, Why Parties Should Store Electronic Information In Accessible Formats, Benjamin D. Silbert
Richmond Journal of Law & Technology
Discovery jurisprudence is a cornerstone of civil litigation in the United States. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as adopted in 1938, introduced a broad discovery process, which was not a previously accepted practice. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been revised several times since 1938, reflecting the evolution of society. However, prior to 2006, 1970 was the last time the discovery rules were amended to take into account changes in information technology. In the last thirty-seven years, technological advances in electronic storage and communication have changed the way people live and how business is conducted, beyond what could …
Proving Lost Profits Under Daubert: Five Questions Every Court Should Ask Before Admitting Expert Testimony, Robert M. Lloyd
Proving Lost Profits Under Daubert: Five Questions Every Court Should Ask Before Admitting Expert Testimony, Robert M. Lloyd
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Preservation Obligation: Regulating And Sanctioning Pre-Litigation Spoliation In Federal Court, A. Benjamin Spencer
The Preservation Obligation: Regulating And Sanctioning Pre-Litigation Spoliation In Federal Court, A. Benjamin Spencer
Scholarly Articles
The issue of discovery misconduct, specifically as it pertains to the pre-litigation duty to preserve and sanctions for spoliation, has garnered much attention in the wake of decisions by two prominent jurists whose voices carry great weight in this area. In Pension Committee of University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Bank of America Securities, Judge Shira Scheindlin - of the Zubulake e-discovery cases - penned a scholarly and thorough opinion setting forth her views regarding the triggering of the duty to preserve potentially relevant information pending litigation and the standards for determining the appropriate sanctions for various breaches of that …
Florida's Request For Admission Rule: 150 Years On The Road To Inconsistency, Ineffectiveness And Appellate Nullification, Mitchell J. Frank
Florida's Request For Admission Rule: 150 Years On The Road To Inconsistency, Ineffectiveness And Appellate Nullification, Mitchell J. Frank
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Apology Within A Moral Dialectic: A Reply To Professor Robbennolt, Lee Taft
Apology Within A Moral Dialectic: A Reply To Professor Robbennolt, Lee Taft
Michigan Law Review
Over the last several years, much has been written about the role of apology in facilitating the resolution of legal disputes. Within this body of work a debate has developed among legal scholars, practitioners, and legislators. Under traditional rules of evidence an apology which acknowledged fault would enter evidence as an admission against interest. Now there is a movement to legislatively "protect" apologies from the effects of the traditional rule in order to facilitate apology without evidentiary encumbrance. Scholars who have argued in favor of the relaxation of the traditional rule have largely relied on anecdotal evidence to support their …
Like Migratory Birds- Latin American Claimants In U.S. Courts And The Ford-Firestone Rollover Litigation, Manuel A. Gómez
Like Migratory Birds- Latin American Claimants In U.S. Courts And The Ford-Firestone Rollover Litigation, Manuel A. Gómez
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Recent Evaluative Research On Jury Trial Innovations, B. Michael Dann, Valerie P. Hans
Recent Evaluative Research On Jury Trial Innovations, B. Michael Dann, Valerie P. Hans
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
During the past decade, state jury reform commissions, many individual federal and state judges, and jury scholars have advocated the adoption of a variety of innovative trial procedures to assist jurors in trials. Many jury trial reforms reflect growing awareness of best practices in education and communication as well as research documenting that jurors take an active rather than a passive approach to their decision-making task. Traditional adversary jury trial procedures often appear to assume that jurors are blank slates, who will passively wait until the end of the trial and the start of jury deliberations to form opinions about …
Jones On Evidence: Civil And Criminal 7th Ed., Anne T. Mckenna, Clifford S. Fishman
Jones On Evidence: Civil And Criminal 7th Ed., Anne T. Mckenna, Clifford S. Fishman
Books
In 2004, Anne began co-authoring this seminal evidence treatise, which is in its second century of publication. Jones on Evidence (“Jones”) currently contains 5 hardbound volumes and a softbound appendix of new chapters with two new hardbound volumes forthcoming. All volumes are updated yearly. Jones enables civil and criminal practitioners in private and public practice to learn and understand evidentiary issues and evidentiary rules, including the Federal Rules of Evidence, and to use evidence effectively, whether the issue is admission, exclusion, preservation or relevance. Jones has been cited in numerous federal and state court opinions and law review …
Expert Witness Fees As A Recoverable Item Of Costs: Recent Litigation Trends, Paul M. Kolker
Expert Witness Fees As A Recoverable Item Of Costs: Recent Litigation Trends, Paul M. Kolker
Oklahoma Law Review
No abstract provided.
Gaining/Losing Perspective On The Law, Or Keeping Digital Evidence In Perspective, Christopher J. Buccafusco
Gaining/Losing Perspective On The Law, Or Keeping Digital Evidence In Perspective, Christopher J. Buccafusco
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Apologies And Legal Settlement: An Empirical Examination, Jennifer K. Robbennolt
Apologies And Legal Settlement: An Empirical Examination, Jennifer K. Robbennolt
Michigan Law Review
It is often said that U.S. legal culture discourages apologies. Defendants, defense counsel, and insurers worry that statements of apology will be admissible at trial and will be interpreted by jurors and judges as admissions of responsibility. In recent years, however, several legal commentators have suggested that disputants in civil lawsuits should be encouraged to apologize to opposing parties. They claim that apologies will avert lawsuits and promote settlement. Consistent with this view, legislatures in several states have enacted statutes that are intended to encourage and protect apologies by making them inadmissible. In addition, some commentators argue that defendants might …
Daubert & Danger: The "Fit" Of Expert Predictions In Civil Commitments, Alex Scherr
Daubert & Danger: The "Fit" Of Expert Predictions In Civil Commitments, Alex Scherr
Scholarly Works
The opinions of experts in prediction in civil commitment hearings should help the courts, but over thirty years of commentary, judicial opinion, and scientific review argue that predictions of danger lack scientific rigor. The United States Supreme Court has commented regularly on the uncertainty of predictive science. The American Psychiatric Association has argued to the Court that "[t]he professional literature uniformly establishes that such predictions are fundamentally of very low reliability." Scientific studies indicate that some predictions do little better than chance or lay speculation, and even the best predictions leave substantial room for error about individual cases. The sharpest …
A Review Of China's New Civil Evidence Law, Paul J. Schmidt
A Review Of China's New Civil Evidence Law, Paul J. Schmidt
Washington International Law Journal
On December 21, 2001, China's Supreme People's Court promulgated landmark rules concerning the production and use of evidence in civil cases. These rules became effective on April 1, 2002 and apply to legal actions initiated after that date. The rules apply in all Chinese courts, from the high and intermediate level courts found at the provincial and prefecture level, down to the basic level courts found in rural counties and in urban districts. Of the eighty-three newly promulgated rules, more than half concern procedures for exchanging, confronting, investigating, or discovering evidence. Eleven are strict rules of evidence. The remainder is …
A Review Of China's New Civil Evidence Law, Paul J. Schmidt
A Review Of China's New Civil Evidence Law, Paul J. Schmidt
Washington International Law Journal
On December 21, 2001, China's Supreme People's Court promulgated landmark rules concerning the production and use of evidence in civil cases. These rules became effective on April 1, 2002 and apply to legal actions initiated after that date. The rules apply in all Chinese courts, from the high and intermediate level courts found at the provincial and prefecture level, down to the basic level courts found in rural counties and in urban districts. Of the eighty-three newly promulgated rules, more than half concern procedures for exchanging, confronting, investigating, or discovering evidence. Eleven are strict rules of evidence. The remainder is …
Revoking Our Privileges: Federal Law Enforcement's Multi-Front Assault On The Attorney-Client Privilege (And Why It Is Misguided), Lance Cole
Villanova Law Review (1956 - )
No abstract provided.
Expert Information And Expert Evidence: A Preliminary Taxonomy, Samuel R. Gross, Jennifer L. Mnookin
Expert Information And Expert Evidence: A Preliminary Taxonomy, Samuel R. Gross, Jennifer L. Mnookin
Articles
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 speaks in very general terms. It governs every situation in which "scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact," and provides that, in that situation, "a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise . . . .' In 2000, following a trio of Supreme Court cases interpreting Rule 702, the Rule was amended to include a third requirement, in addition to the helpfulness of the testimony and the qualifications of the witness: reliability. Under Rule 702 …