Evidence-Relevance

Front 1

Relevance

What is logical Relevance?

Back 1

Evidence that has any tendency to make a material fact more probable or less probable then it would be without the evidence

Front 2

Relevance

When MAY relevance not be logically relevant?

Back 2

if the evidence involves some other

1. time

2. event

3. person

Front 3

Relevance

When may relevant evidence be excluded under FRE 403?

Back 3

when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of

1. Unfair prejudice
2. confusion of issues
3. misleading jury
4. undue delay
5. waste of time
6. cumalative evidence

Front 4

Relevance-similar occurences

causation

Back 4

to prove cause and effect

PL eats at D restaraunt and gets sick. P can offer evidence that others who ate same type of food at same time at restaraint also got sick

Front 5

Relevance: Similar Occurences

Prior Accidents or claims

Back 5

Where D wants to show prior acts of P and where P wants to show other accidents involving same instrumentality

ex: P drives into bridge abutment and sues city that built and maintained bridge. D can show that P has on 4 other occasions driven into stationary objects and sued

Front 6

Relevance: Similar occurences

are P's prior accidents or claims admissible?

Back 6

No, but see next card for exceptions

Front 7

Relevance: Similar occurences

Exceptions to the rule that prior accidents of P are not admissible

Back 7

1. Common plan and scheme if prior acts were fradulent

2. Prior accidents are relevant to damage (If other accidents are similar, P can show that in the last year six other drivers drove into the same bridge abutment)

Front 8

Relevance: Similar occurences

General rule involving the admissibility by P of evidence of other accidents involving the same instrumentality which occurred under the same or similar circumstances

Back 8

to show notice or knowledge of municipality and show that instrumentality is defective

Front 9

Relevance-Similar circumstances

Is evidence of state of mind or intent admissible

Back 9

Yes

to show discriminatory intent (P offering evidence to show other qualified women denied employment)

Front 10

Relevance-Similar occurences

When is rebuttal evidence used?

Back 10

to rebut the defense of impossibility

(mouse in coke can)

Front 11

Relevance-Similar occurences

Is evidence of comparable sales to establish value admissible?

Back 11

Yes if...

1. same general description

2. Same general geographic area

3. Same time

Front 12

Relevance-Similar occurences

what is habit evidence?

Back 12

The habit of a person to act in a certain way is relevant to show that person acted in the same way on the occasion in question

Front 13

Relevance: Similar occurences

disposition v Habit

Back 13

Disposition evidence is not admissible

Front 14

Relevance-Similar occurrences

Prior Act evidence v Habit

Back 14

Prio act evidence (acted a certain way once or twice) is not admissible)

Front 15

Relevance: Similar occurences

What is needed for Habit evidence to be admissible?

Back 15

1. specificity

2. recurrence-must have occurred often enough to be habitual

Front 16

Relevance: Similar Occurences

What are the key words to look for that indicate Habit evidence?

Back 16

1. always
2. instinctively
3. invariably
4. automatically

Front 17

Relevance: Similar occurrences

is Industrial or trade custom admissible?

Back 17

Yes, but is not conclusive

Front 18

Relevance: Discretionary Policy

what are the 3 areas of importance?

Back 18

1. Liability insurance,

2. subsequent remedial measures, and

3. settlements

Front 19

Relevance: Discretionary policy

Is Liability insurance admissible?

Back 19

the general rule is that liability insurance is not admissible to show person acted negligently or to show ability to pay (nor would absence of LI)

Front 20

Relevance: Discretionary Policy

When is evidence if liability insurance admissible?

Back 20

1. to show ownership or control

2. impeach credibility of W by showing interest or bias

Front 21

Relevance: Discretionary Policy

are Subsequent Remedial Measures admissible?

Back 21

not admissible to show negligence, culpable conduct, or strict liability.

admissible to show

1. ownership and control
2. Impeachment (when D says, "no way I could have avoided this accident")

Front 22

Relevance: Discretionary policy

When are Settlements not admissible?

Back 22

not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct or amount of damage

Front 23

Relevance: Discretionary Policy

what does the broad rule regarding the non-admissibility of settlements cover?

Back 23

1. actual compromises
2. offers to compromise
3. offers to plead guilty in a criminal case
4. withdrawn pleas of guilty
5. pleas of nolo contendere

Front 24

Relevance: Discretionary Policy

are admissions of fact, liability, or damage made in the course of an offer to compromise a claim disputed as to liability or as to amount admissible?

Back 24

No

Front 25

Relevance: Discretionary Policy

What are the limitations for the rule of exclusion to apply to Settements?

Back 25

1. There must be a claim

2. The claim must be disputed as to either liability or amount

Front 26

Relevance: Discretionary Policy

are offers to pay Medical Expenses admissible since it is not really a settlement offer

Back 26

No, but if an admission of fact accompanies a naked offer to pay medical expenses, the admission may be admitted