Whether you are drafting pre-trial motions or arguing a point of law in the thick of trial, Trial Objections can help you get your evidence in and keep your opponent’s evidence out. The 2017 edition keeps you on the cutting edge of evidentiary law and practice. Author Rogge Dunn has added a new section on the admissibility of social media evidence, which includes summaries of 23 new cases, decided by federal courts and state courts across the country, from California to Delaware. The 2017 edition also includes dozens of new case summaries, covering a wide range of possible grounds for objection, including: Witness Testimony Counsel is impeaching his own witness. The question calls for an opinion from the witness. The prejudicial nature of the evidence substantially outweighs its probative value. The testimony is not proper lay opinion. Counsel is leading the witness. Expert Testimony Counsel has not demonstrated the admissibility of the expert’s testimony under Rules 702 and 703, Federal Rules of Evidence, and Daubert. Counsel has not laid adequate foundation for the expert to express an opinion. Counsel has failed to establish proper qualifications for the witness to testify as an expert. Summation Counsel is improperly attacking opposing counsel, a party, or a witness. PLUS, you get expanded coverage of the current federal and state law governing: Misconduct Jurors’ use of social media. Common Evidentiary Battles Mitigation in tort and fraud cases. Defendant’s financial condition. Defendant’s prior acts. Statistical evidence.
See also Country Community Timberlake Village v. HMW Special Utility District of Harris, 438 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Ct. App. 2014) (holding that a neighboring ...
After Justin Timberlake exposed Janet Jackson's pierced nipple on national television for 9/16ths of a second, the FCC received over 540,000 complaints.
Volume III: The Chesapeake and New England, 1660-1750 William E. Nelson ... Decision of Law, Surry County Ct. 1673/74, in Eliza Timberlake Davis ed., ...
E. Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941), 66 Edwards v. Housing Authority of City of ... Timberlake, 148 Ind. 38,46 N.E.339 (1897), 69,70 Graves v.
Fitzgerald, 4.08[B][2], 5.05[D] Fitzgerald v. ... Mastrapa-Font, 7.03[A][3] Fontaine, In re, 5.05[D] Fontenette v. ... Frost, 5.05[A] Formato v.
The sole remedy is avoidance, however; damages cannot be claimed under s. ... 17, it places a great deal of power in the hands of insurance companies to ...
Normally, a mate«s receipt would later be given up for a bill of lading, ... they necessarily prejudice the rights of those who deal in the goods ...
27 257 U.S. 184, 42 S. Ct. 72, 66 L. Ed. 189 (1921). ... 38 Argensinger, “Right to Strike”: Labor Organization and the New Deal in Baltimore, 78 MD . HIST .
704 Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, s. 80. 705 Leith v. Gould [1986] 1 NZLR 760. It is not clear how a New Zealand court would deal with a case such ...
... to meet the reasonable expectations of claimants about how the corporation should deal with them, by, inter alia, ... 7 Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, s.