Afficher la notice abrégée

dc.creatorAshby, Danny
dc.creatorCoale, David
dc.creatorKratovil, Christopher
dc.date.accessioned2022-02-07T19:40:20Z
dc.date.available2022-02-07T19:40:20Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.identifier.citationDanny Ashby, David Coale, and Christopher Kratovil, Fifth Circuit Survey: Evidence, 42 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 749 (2009-2010)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2346/88809
dc.description.abstractSince the last edition of the Texas Tech Law Review Fifth Circuit Survey dedicated to evidence, however, the Fifth Circuit ruled on several fundamental evidence issues, including reliance on hearsay in an affidavit and the contours of the relevance rules. It also detailed some important proof considerations on the common issue of whether a piece of correspondence was received.2 The Fifth Circuit has also held that FRE 404(b) applies only to persons and not to inanimate objects, and has confirmed that cumulative evidentiary error can-in rare instances-be so severe as to warrant reversal of a jury verdict. While the Fifth Circuit's evidentiary opinions during the relevant time were both pragmatic and thoughtful, it is impossible to identify any particular trend or unifying theme in the court's recent evidence jurisprudence.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherTexas Tech Law Reviewen_US
dc.subjectFederal Rules of Evidenceen_US
dc.subjectUnited States v. $92,203.00 in U.S. Currencyen_US
dc.subjectHinojosa v. Butleren_US
dc.subjectBaker v. Canadian National/Illinois Central Railroaden_US
dc.subjectCompaq Computer Corp. v. Ergonome Inc.en_US
dc.subjectPaz v. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc.en_US
dc.subjectDuron v. Albertson's L.L.C.en_US
dc.subjectBrazos River Authority v. GE Ionics, Inc.en_US
dc.titleFifth Circuit Survey: Evidenceen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Fichier(s) constituant ce document

Thumbnail

Ce document figure dans la(les) collection(s) suivante(s)

Afficher la notice abrégée