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 361 - 390 of 524
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Daubert Asks The Right Questions: Now Appellate Courts Should Help Find The Right Answers, Christopher B. Mueller
Daubert Asks The Right Questions: Now Appellate Courts Should Help Find The Right Answers, Christopher B. Mueller
Publications
No abstract provided.
"Speaking Rights": Evaluating Juror Discussions During Civil Trials, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans, G. Thomas Munsterman
"Speaking Rights": Evaluating Juror Discussions During Civil Trials, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans, G. Thomas Munsterman
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
Permitting jurors to discuss evidence during civil trials may facilitate understanding and provide an outlet for their thoughts and questions, and does not appear to lead to prejudgment or prejudice.
Evidence: 1999-2000 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi
Evidence: 1999-2000 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Permitting Jury Discussions During Trial: Impact Of The Arizona Reform, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans, G. Thomas Munsterman
Permitting Jury Discussions During Trial: Impact Of The Arizona Reform, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans, G. Thomas Munsterman
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
A field experiment tested the effect of an Arizona civil jury reform that allows jurors to discuss evidence among themselves during the trial. Judges, jurors, attorneys, and litigants completed questionnaires in trials randomly assigned to either a Trial Discussions condition, in which jurors were permitted to discuss the evidence during trial, or a No Discussions condition, in which jurors were prohibited from discussing evidence during trial according to traditional admonitions. Judicial agreement with jury verdicts did not differ between conditions. Permitting jurors to discuss the evidence did affect the degree of certainty that jurors reported about their preferences at the …
The Timing Of Opinion Formation By Jurors In Civil Cases: An Empirical Examination, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans, Nicole L. Mott, G. Thomas Munsterman
The Timing Of Opinion Formation By Jurors In Civil Cases: An Empirical Examination, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans, Nicole L. Mott, G. Thomas Munsterman
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
The question of when and how jurors form opinions about evidence presented at trial has been the focus of seemingly endless speculation. For lawyers, the question is how to capture the attention and approval of the jury at the earliest possible point in the trial. Their goal is to maximize the persuasiveness of their arguments--or at least to minimize the persuasiveness of those of the opposing side. Judges, in contrast, are more concerned about prejudgment. They regularly admonish jurors to suspend judgment until after all the evidence has been presented and after the jurors have been instructed on the law. …
Evidence: 1998-1999 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi
Evidence: 1998-1999 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
The Jury And Scientific Evidence, Richard O. Lempert
The Jury And Scientific Evidence, Richard O. Lempert
Articles
Read court decisions and commentaries from 100, or evenfive years ago, and you will find that experts and scientific evidence were causing problems then just as they are causing problems now. I do not think that Daubert, Kumho Tire, or any change in a rule of evidence will keep expert scientific testimony from being a difficult area for the legal system. Yet we must still ask: "What are the best terms on which to deal with scientific experts, and how can weimprove the system?"
Inevitable Discovery In Washington State And The Unreasonable "Reasonableness" Requirement, David Seaver
Inevitable Discovery In Washington State And The Unreasonable "Reasonableness" Requirement, David Seaver
Seattle University Law Review
This Comment will examine the substantial differences between Division One's current version of inevitable discovery and that adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Nix, which is still the only version affirmatively accepted by the Washington Supreme Court. Having distinguished the differences, this Comment ultimately suggests an amalgamation of the most desirable parts of each version of the inevitable discovery exception. The author proposes that the "reasonableness" element demanded by Division One is duplicative and unnecessarily burdensome on the prosecution. The version proposed by this Comment recognizes the potential benefits to the search for truth and to the societal …
Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Courtroom: Spoilation Of Evidence In Illinois, 32 J. Marshall L. Rev. 325 (1999), Kristin Adamski
Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Courtroom: Spoilation Of Evidence In Illinois, 32 J. Marshall L. Rev. 325 (1999), Kristin Adamski
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Antiquated "Slight Evidence Rule" In Federal Conspiracy Cases, Brent E. Newton
The Antiquated "Slight Evidence Rule" In Federal Conspiracy Cases, Brent E. Newton
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
This article addresses the risk of wrongful convictions in federal conspiracy cases. The article points out how conspiracy cases rely heavily on circumstantial evidence and the slight evidence rule. The risk of over assigning liability to parties with minor involvement is also discussed.
The Arizona Jury Reform Permitting Civil Jury Trial Discussions: The View Of Trial Participants, Judges, And Jurors, Valerie P. Hans, Paula Hannaford-Agor, G. Thomas Munsterman
The Arizona Jury Reform Permitting Civil Jury Trial Discussions: The View Of Trial Participants, Judges, And Jurors, Valerie P. Hans, Paula Hannaford-Agor, G. Thomas Munsterman
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
In 1995, the Arizona Supreme Court reformed the jury trial process by allowing civil jurors to discuss the evidence presented during trial prior to their formal deliberations. This Article examines the theoretical, legal, and policy issues raised by this reform and presents the early results of a field experiment that tested the impact of trial discussions. Jurors, judges, attorneys, and litigants in civil jury trials in Arizona were questioned regarding their observations, experiences, and reactions during trial as well as what they perceived to be the benefits and drawback of juror discussions. The data revealed that the majority of judges …
Evidence: 1997-1998 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi
Evidence: 1997-1998 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Evidence—Scientific Evidence: Standard Of Review Raises Questions Of Fit. General Electric Co. V. Joiner, 118 S. Ct. 512 (1997)., Russell D. Marlin
Evidence—Scientific Evidence: Standard Of Review Raises Questions Of Fit. General Electric Co. V. Joiner, 118 S. Ct. 512 (1997)., Russell D. Marlin
University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review
No abstract provided.
Evidence: 1996-1997 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi
Evidence: 1996-1997 Survey Of New York Law, Faust Rossi
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Make-Believe: The Rules Excluding Evidence Of Character And Liability Insurance (Symposium: Truth And Its Rivals: Evidence Reform And The Goals Of Evidence Law), Samuel R. Gross
Articles
Article IV of the Federal Rules of Evidence includes several rules that prohibit the use of specified types of information as evidence of particular propositions. Subsequent remedial measures are inadmissible to prove negligence (but admissible to show ownership, control, et cetera),' settlement offers are inadmissible to prove liability (but admissible to show bias or prejudice, or for other purposes),2 and so forth. Any exclusion of relevant evidence involves some distortion of reality in the sense that the picture presented to the trier of fact includes less information than the available total. That will be true whether the evidence is kept …
The Epistemology Of Admissibility: Why Even Good Philosophy Of Science Would Not Make For Good Philosophy Of Evidence, Brian Leiter
The Epistemology Of Admissibility: Why Even Good Philosophy Of Science Would Not Make For Good Philosophy Of Evidence, Brian Leiter
BYU Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Misapplication Of Daubert: Compton V. Subaru Of America Opens The Gate For Unreliable And Irrelevant Expert Testimony, Jonathan R. Schofield
A Misapplication Of Daubert: Compton V. Subaru Of America Opens The Gate For Unreliable And Irrelevant Expert Testimony, Jonathan R. Schofield
BYU Law Review
No abstract provided.
Oregon Trial Practice, Oregon Law Institute, William Gaylord, Robert A. Shlachter, Janet Lee Hoffman, Robert J. Neuberger, Billy M. Sime, Gregory R. Mowe, David B. Markowitz, Bruce C. Hamlin
Oregon Trial Practice, Oregon Law Institute, William Gaylord, Robert A. Shlachter, Janet Lee Hoffman, Robert J. Neuberger, Billy M. Sime, Gregory R. Mowe, David B. Markowitz, Bruce C. Hamlin
Oregon Law Institute, 1997
Course Materials from the April 11, 1997 Program in Portland
Whoever Fights Monsters Should See To It That In The Process He Does Not Become A Monster: Hunting The Sexual Predator With Silver Bullets -- Federal Rules Of Evidence 413-415 -- And A Stake Through The Heart -- Kansas V. Hendricks, Joelle A. Moreno
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Substance And Form In Scientific Evidence: What Daubert Didn't Do, Samuel R. Gross
Substance And Form In Scientific Evidence: What Daubert Didn't Do, Samuel R. Gross
Book Chapters
On its face, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals was about as easy a case as the Supreme Court gets. The plaintiff claimed that their birth defect were caused by the anti-nausea drug Bendectin, which their mothers had used during their gestation. In response to a motion for summary judgment by the defendant, the plaintiff presented affidavits of eight expert witnesses who offered their opinion - based on a variety of studies- that Bendectin was indeed the culprit. The federal district court that heard the motion granted summary judgment to the defendant, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Both lower court held …
Third-Party Modification Of Protective Orders Under Rule 26©, Patrick S. Kim
Third-Party Modification Of Protective Orders Under Rule 26©, Patrick S. Kim
Michigan Law Review
This Note argues that similarly situated litigants always should be given access to protected discovered materials, while nonlitigants should gain access to protected materials only in exceptional circumstances. This approach effectively balances the privacy and property interests of the original parties and the intervening parties with the interests of adjudicative efficiency. Part I establishes that there is no general public right of access to civil discovery and that courts should disregard such purported rights when considering whether to modify a protective order. Part II identifies three interests that courts should weigh when considering whether to modify a protective order: the …
The Flexible Doctrine Of Spoliation Of Evidence; Cause Of Action, Defense, Evidentiary Presumption And Discovery Sanction, Robert L. Tucker
The Flexible Doctrine Of Spoliation Of Evidence; Cause Of Action, Defense, Evidentiary Presumption And Discovery Sanction, Robert L. Tucker
Akron Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
The Federal Rules Of Evidence--Past, Present, And Future: A Twenty-Year Perspective, Faust Rossi
The Federal Rules Of Evidence--Past, Present, And Future: A Twenty-Year Perspective, Faust Rossi
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
This Essay surveys three major transformations in state and federal rules of evidence since the introduction of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Rules have not only inspired a movement toward codification in the states, they have also liberalized the admission of expert testimony and hearsay. This partially explains thirteen states' reluctance to codify. Judges have furthered this trend by admitting far more discretionary hearsay evidence than Congress intended. Professor Rossi doubts this expansion of the hearsay exceptions would have occurred without the adoption of the FRE and suggests that the newly formed Advisory Committee will produce greater substantive changes …
Clinging To History: The Supreme Court (Mis)Interprets Federal Rule Of Evidence 801(D)(1)(B) As Containing A Temporal Requirement, Christopher A. Jones
Clinging To History: The Supreme Court (Mis)Interprets Federal Rule Of Evidence 801(D)(1)(B) As Containing A Temporal Requirement, Christopher A. Jones
University of Richmond Law Review
The adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence (the Rules) resulted in a more liberal standard for the admission and use of various forms of evidence. For example, the Rules altered the definition of "relevant evidence" increasing the scope of evidence that can be presented to a jury. Also, the Rules per- mit prior inconsistent statements to be admitted as substantive evidence rather than for impeachment purposes only. The Advisory Committee enunciated these changes, and other changes resulting from the adoption of the Rules, in their notes accompanying the Rules.
The Hague Evidence Convention: The Need For Guidance On Procedures And Resolution Of Conflicts In Transnational Discovery, John C. Plaster
The Hague Evidence Convention: The Need For Guidance On Procedures And Resolution Of Conflicts In Transnational Discovery, John C. Plaster
Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law
As international commercial disputes become more common, United States courts increasingly face difficult issues involved in transnational discovery. Two frequently encountered issues are choosing whether to use the discovery procedures of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Hague Evidence Convention and whether to enforce a discovery order when the order conflicts with a law of the state in which discovery is to occur. Although the Supreme Court has addressed both of these issues, it has left lower courts considerable discretion to deal with these issues case by case. Lower courts, therefore, have not been uniform in their approaches …
Discovery In The Real World, Minna J. Kotkin
Discovery In The Real World, Minna J. Kotkin
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Experts, Stories, And Information, Richard O. Lempert
Experts, Stories, And Information, Richard O. Lempert
Articles
In the infancy of the jury trial, there were no witnesses. The jury was self-informing. Members of the jury were drawn from the community. It was expected that they would know, either firsthand or on the basis of what they had heard, the true facts of any disputed incident, and they were gathered together to say what those facts were. Ronald Allen and Joseph Miller, in their insightful paper, see the ideal of the self-informing jury as very much alive today. Allen and Miller tell us that jurors ideally should experience firsthand the factual information needed to arrive at rational …
A New Antidote For An Opponent's Pretrial Discovery Misconduct: Treating The Misconduct At Trial As An Admission By Conduct Of The Weakness Of The Opponent's Case, Edward J. Imwinkelried
A New Antidote For An Opponent's Pretrial Discovery Misconduct: Treating The Misconduct At Trial As An Admission By Conduct Of The Weakness Of The Opponent's Case, Edward J. Imwinkelried
BYU Law Review
No abstract provided.
Toward A Liberal Application Of The "Close Of All The Evidence" Requirement Of Rule 50(B) Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure: Embracing Fairness Over Formalism, Rollin A. Ransom
Michigan Law Review
This Note examines the language and purposes of rule 50 to determine if and when a relaxed application of its requirements is appropriate. Part I considers the terms and goal of the rule and concludes that its purpose is to put the party opposing the motion for judgment as a matter of law on notice of the movant's assertion that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law, and to provide the opposing party an opportunity to "cure." Part II discusses courts' varying application of the requirement that a motion for judgment as a matter of law made at …
Jaws Xvi: The Exceptions That Ate Rule 220, 26 J. Marshall L. Rev. 189 (1993), Charles W. Chapman
Jaws Xvi: The Exceptions That Ate Rule 220, 26 J. Marshall L. Rev. 189 (1993), Charles W. Chapman
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.