Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
SS v. TH Case Law
Shannon Shahid v. Taylor Hopson (2024) Case Law
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Jones v. Narendra (1935) | Heirs are determined at death; a revoked or unexecuted will has no effect. |
| Brock v. Blom (1965) | A conviction for crimes like murder or manslaughter qualifies under the Slayer Statute; absent a conviction, proceedings must follow Slayer Statute protocol. |
| Maloney v. Soucar (1974) | Acquittals or lack of charges don't prevent Slayer Statute cases, and such criminal outcomes are inadmissible as evidence. |
| Caltry v. Bridgeman (1985) | Culpable action in Slayer cases includes knowingly, purposefully, or facilitating the decedent's death. |
| Salter v. Kidwai (1992) | Slayer Statute focuses on actions, not motives; motive may still be relevant but is not required. |
| Bearinger v. Rajan (2009) | Defendants who facilitated a death are culpable, including actions like aiding or inducing. |
| Martinez v. Martinez (2015) | Plaintiff doesn't need to identify co-facilitators to prove defendant's culpability in facilitation. |
| Jeff v. Wario's Toolkit (1974) | Plaintiffs in civil cases must prove claims by a preponderance of the evidence. |
| Haug v. Sanders (2002) | Fact finders may rely on both direct and circumstantial evidence equally. |
| Zomerfeld v. Noto (2012) | Courts may use inadmissible evidence to determine if other evidence is admissible. |
| Mehta v. Wesley (2015) | Custodial documents can be used to establish admissibility of other evidence, but require proper foundation to be entered as evidence. |
| Thomas v. Davis (2001) | Pleadings frame trial issues; parties can't alter their claims to prevent evidence presentation. |
| Shakur v. Wallace (1994) | Fact finders determine credibility and may accept or reject parts of a witness's testimony. |
| Verbaarschott v. Lee (2005) | Admitted factual allegations in pleadings remain relevant and useful to the jury. |
| Graham v. Duckworth (2024) | Witnesses may be questioned about inconsistencies but cannot opine on other witnesses' truthfulness. |
| Filteau v. Wanek (1992) | Evidence allowing a reasonable jury to identify the speaker makes a statement admissible. |
| Ginger v. Heisman (2015) | Emails and texts are authenticated if they can reasonably be attributed to the sender. |
| State v. Sinclair (2016) | Jurors may compare handwriting samples with or without expert aid. |
| Simpson v. Rose (1992) | Verbal acts are admissible as non-hearsay if they hold independent legal significance. |
| Farrant v. Westaway (1994) | Statements for identification, not truth, are non-hearsay. |
| Knox v. Revoir (1995) | MRE 801(d)(2) statements don't have to be against the party's interest to be admissible. |
| Zedell v. Hussain (1998) | MRE 803(4) doesn't apply to statements made to litigation-retained experts. |
| Dolly v. Ringo (2010) | MRE 801(d)(2) only applies to statements by the opposing party. |
| Seferian v. Morales (2010) | Statements by third parties in a conspiracy aren't admissible under MRE 801(d)(2)(E) in Slayer cases. |
| America's Best Cookie v. International House of Waffles (2011) | Hearsay includes statements by witnesses who testify in the trial. |
| Kaplan v. Sikora (2013) | Statements by a party's agent on matters within their scope are non-hearsay if made within the employment period. |
| Chambers v. By the Book Publishing, Ltd. (2015) | Hearsay applies only when an out-of-court statement is offered for its truth. |
| McKanna v. Malburg (2019) | The Midlands Rules of Evidence govern even if federal rules differ. |
| Rogers v. Mars (2020) | Decedent statements aren't plaintiff or defendant statements but may still be admissible under other rules. |
| Petrillo v. Martini and Peony Estates (2021) | Labels on commercial products are reliable and admissible despite hearsay concerns. |
| State v. B.F. De la Porta (2024) | Hearsay requires an assertion of fact intended to establish the truth of that fact. |
| Krent v. Lions, Inc. (2009) | "Reverse character evidence" on third-party suspects can be admitted if its relevance outweighs prejudice. |
| Estate of Hamilton v. Walton (2009) | Psychological conditions don't qualify as character evidence under MRE 404(a)(1). |
Created by:
junicruz