Qualifications, Presentation and Challenges to Expert Testimony - Daubert (i.e. is a DFPS caseworker an expert)
|
|
- Agatha Palmer
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Qualifications, Presentation and Challenges to Expert Testimony - Daubert (i.e. is a DFPS caseworker an expert) 1. Introduction Theodore B. Jereb Attorney at Law P.L.L.C FM 529, Suite 115 Houston, Texas Tel: (832) Fax: (832) jereblawfirm@gmail.com The Texas Rules of Evidence provide that a person qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may provide testimony in the form of an opinion if the trier of fact will be assisted in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue. Tex. R. Ev Generally, expert testimony must meet two requirements. First, the expert must be qualified in the field of the subject matter in issue, and second, the testimony must be relevant and based on a reliable foundation. If these requirements are met, the expert may offer an opinion on a mixed question of law and fact, i.e. an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. Tex. R. Ev Certain types of cases require expert witness testimony to survive a motion for an instructed verdict and to submit the case to the trier of fact. For example, a claimant alleging malpractice against a physician, attorney, engineer or other professional needs an expert qualified in that field to establish the applicable standard of care. Some cases require expert testimony to establish causation between the claimed damages and the incident or transaction made the basis of the suit, when the connection is not plainly within the knowledge of laypersons. In other cases expert testimony is not necessary, but can assist the trier of fact, such as a reconstruction expert in an auto collision case or a valuation expert in a lost business opportunity case. 2. Discovery of Expert Witnesses Under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, parties may discover information concerning the opposing party s testifying expert witnesses only through a request for disclosure under T.R.C.P. 194 and through depositions and reports under T.R.C.P Information regarding a non-testifying consulting expert whose mental impressions or opinions have been reviewed by a testifying expert is also discoverable through Rules 194 and 195. However, information about a pure consulting expert, whose work product is for the benefit of an attorney and not any testifying expert, is not discoverable. A Rule 194 request for disclosure is used to obtain the identity of an opposing party s testifying expert witnesses, the subject matter of the expert s testimony, and the mental impressions and opinions of the expert. A Rule 194 request for disclosure can also be used to discover other vital information to prepare for trial in a CPS termination
2 case, such as 1) the legal theories, and in general, the factual bases, for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services ( TDFPS ) s claims, 2) the identity of any potential party, 3) the identity of TDFPS fact witnesses, and 4) the existence of any witness statements. A party responding to request for disclosure for information regarding expert witnesses is not permitted to object to the request or assert the attorney work product privilege provided by Rule T.R.C.P Rule requires the responding party to furnish, upon request, the following items if the expert is retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to the control of the responding party: A. all documents, tangible things, reports, models, or data compilations that have been provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by or for the expert in anticipation of the expert s testimony; and B. the expert s current resume and bibliography. If the expert is not retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to the control of the responding party, the responding party must provide documents reflecting the general substance of the expert s mental impressions and opinions and a brief summary of the basis for the mental impressions and opinions. T.R.C.P A Rule 194 request for disclosure must be timely served within the discovery period provided by the applicable Discovery Control Plan. Discovery in a case filed under the Texas Family Code is governed by a Level 2 Discovery Control Plan. Under a Level 2 Discovery Control Plan, all discovery must be conducted during the discovery period, which begins when suit is filed and continues until thirty (30) days before the trial date for cases filed under the Texas Family Code. T.R.C.P (b)(1)(a). Practice tip An attorney appointed to represent a parent in a CPS termination case should prepare and serve a Rule 194 request for disclosure on the Harris County Attorney s Office along with the parent s original answer. Because e-filing is now mandated for Harris County civil cases, counsel for a respondent parent must e-file the original answer and a certificate of written discovery with the Harris County District Clerk. The Rule 194 request for disclosure, and any other written discovery requests (such as a requests for production, interrogatories and/or requests for admission), should be served on all counsel of record with the certificate of written discovery pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21a. Preparing and serving discovery requests at an early stage in the case will avoid any objection by TDFPS counsel to discovery of expert witnesses and their opinions/ reports based on an untimely request. Prudent counsel should also 1) download and print a copy of the certificate of written discovery with confirmation of acceptance by the 2
3 District Clerk and 2) retain proof of service, pursuant to T.R.C.P. 21 and 21a, to prove the method and date of service on TDFPS counsel. Attachment 1 is a form Request for Disclosure that may be used in a CPS termination case. Attachment 2 is a form Request for Production to obtain the TDFPS case file and a respondent parent s various evaluations/assessments, which are generally performed as part of the parent s family plan of service. The attorney representing the parent may modify the form Request for Production to obtain other relevant, nonprivileged documents as needed for that particular case. Attachment 3 is a form Certificate of Written Discovery for e-filing with the Harris County District Clerk. 3. Admissibility of Expert Witness Testimony Texas Rule of Evidence 702 (formerly Texas Rule of Civil Evidence 702) was adopted in 1983 and governs the admission of expert testimony as follows: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. After Rule 702 was adopted, the Texas court of appeal decisions conflicted regarding the appropriate standard of admissibility of scientific expert testimony. The Texas Supreme Court addressed the issue and resolved the conflict in E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995). Robinson involved a property damage claim resulting from an allegedly defective fungicide product. The plaintiffs offered testimony from a degreed horticulturist, but following a pretrial hearing, the trial court excluded the testimony on the basis that it was not grounded on valid scientific methods and was, therefore, not reliable. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that once the proponent establishes an expert s qualifications, the weight to be given the testimony and the credibility of the witness is to be determined by the trier of fact. Robinson v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc., 888 S.W.2d 490, 492 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 199, writ granted). Du Pont appealed the ruling and urged the Texas Supreme Court to adopt a reliability standard similar to the standards applicable to Rules 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence, which were identical in wording to Texas Rule of Civil Evidence 702. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d at 556. The United States Supreme Court decided this issue in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, (1993) and held that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 required scientific expert testimony to be reliable and relevant in order to be admissible. It was the responsibility of the trial court, when scientific expert testimony was proffered, to determine as a preliminary matter whether the expert was proposing to testify to 1) scientific knowledge that 2) will assist the trier of fact to 3
4 understand or determine a fact in issue. Under the Daubert holding, the trial court must first assess whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the proffered testimony is scientifically valid, i.e. reliable, and whether the reasoning or methodology can be properly applied to the facts in issue, i.e. relevant. Daubert, 509 U.S. at In Robinson the Texas Supreme Court was persuaded by the reasoning in Daubert and held that in addition to showing that an expert witness is qualified, Rule 702 requires the expert s testimony to be relevant to the issues of the case and be based on a reliable foundation. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d at 556. The Court outlined the following, nonexclusive factors that the trial court could consider in making the threshold determination of admissibility: 1. the extent to which the theory has been or can be tested; 2. the extent to which the technique relies upon the subjective interpretation of the expert; 3. whether the theory has been subjected to peer review and/or publication; 4. the technique s potential rate of error; 5. whether the underlying theory or technique has been generally accepted as valid by the relevant scientific community; and 6. the non-judicial uses which have been made of the theory or technique (such as research conducted outside of the legal forum). After a finding that the proffered scientific expert testimony is both relevant and reliable, the trial court must also determine whether to exclude such testimony under Texas Rule of Evidence 403. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d at 557 (citing Daubert, 569 U.S. at 595-6). Rule 403 provides that: Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Upon a timely challenge to the proffer of expert testimony the trial court is, therefore, the gatekeeper and must determine, at a pretrial hearing, whether such testimony is admissible at trial. The party proffering the expert testimony bears the burden of proof and must convince the trial judge that: 1. the expert is qualified in the field in question; 4
5 2. the expert s testimony must be sufficiently tied to the facts of the case that it will aid the jury in resolving a factual dispute, Robinson, 923 S.W.2d at 556, and therefore, relevant; 3. the expert s testimony must be based on scientific knowledge, and therefore, reliable; and 4. if an objection is asserted under Texas Rule of Evidence 403, the expert s testimony outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. 4. Challenges to Expert Witness Testimony A typical TDFPS response to a Rule 194 request for disclosure in a termination case will name, among other persons, every case worker involved in the case, their supervisor and program director, as expert witnesses for trial. The response usually names anyone from the investigative unit, the conservatorship unit, and even the Family Based Services unit, who has a connection to the case, as an expert for trial. The danger of not challenging the designation of these individuals as experts is the extremely prejudicial impact on the jury, in part because of the way the jury perceives a witness labeled as an expert. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d at 553. A witness found qualified as an expert by the trial court arguably has more credibility than a lay witness, and his or her opinions may be given greater weight simply because of the label of an expert witness. Every caseworker must have a four-year college degree to be hired. TDFPS prefers, but does not require, that the major field study be in social work or human studies. However, even a four-year degree in social work or psychology, for instance, should not qualify the case worker as an expert witness without further education, training and experience. In response to a Rule 194 request for disclosure concerning the proposed subject matter on which TDFPS expert witnesses may offer testimony, the following response is generally given: The best interests of the child subject of this suit; the facts, history and background of the case; the behaviors and needs of the child; Respondent s involvement with the child, services offered to Respondent. Arguably, most of the areas listed above do not need expert testimony to assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, and a case worker would be allowed to testify without being qualified as an expert. These areas are 1) the best interests of the child, 2) the facts, history and background of the case, 3) Respondent s involvement with the child, and 4) the services offered to Respondent. 5
6 In CPS termination cases where the Court has appointed a guardian ad litem, the guardian ad litem is authorized to make recommendations concerning the best interests of the child without regard to any qualification as an expert witness. Tex. Fam. Code (e). In contrast, certain subject matter would require testimony from a qualified expert, such as: 1. Diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of a child s medical, psychological or psychiatric condition; 2. Psychological or psychiatric evaluation of a parent and recommendations for therapy or other services; 3. Substance abuse assessment of a parent and recommendations for treatment or other services; 4. A parent s progress with therapy and need for further therapy; and 5. Diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of a parent s emotional or physical disabilities (which could impact parenting ability). In order to properly prepare for a termination trial, counsel must review TDFPS response to a Rule 194 request for disclosure and evaluate the qualifications of each person designated as an expert witness. For any therapist, counselor, psychologist, and physician who is expected to testify about any of the five areas listed immediately above, counsel must have filed the appropriate discovery request for, and/or subpoena, the documents which form the basis of the expert s mental impressions and opinions. For any case worker or other ostensibly unqualified person designated as an expert for TDFPS, counsel should zealously represent a parent respondent by challenging such designation and place the burden of proof regarding the case worker or other person s qualifications on TDFPS and its counsel at a pretrial hearing. Practice tip In order to challenge TDFPS designation of a case worker (or any other unqualified person) as an expert witness, counsel for a parent must file a written objection to the designation of expert witnesses and set the matter for hearing. Attachment 4 is a form objection that may be used to provide written notice of the parent s objection to the designation of the case worker or other person as an expert. Attachment 4 also contains an order setting hearing, which is used to notify all counsel of the time and date of the pretrial hearing on the objection. To set the hearing, counsel should consult the court coordinator (or other person authorized to set hearings) and ensure the hearing date selected provides at least three days notice to all counsel, excluding the date of filing/service, pursuant to T.R.C.P 21. 6
7 After the hearing date is selected and the order setting hearing is completed by counsel as to the time and date, counsel must request that the trial court judge sign the order. It is highly recommended for the parent s counsel to confirm that the written objection to designation of expert witnesses with the signed order setting hearing is e-filed and accepted by the District Clerk. A copy of the notice of objection, with signed order setting hearing, must be served on the Harris County Attorney s Office, representing TDFPS, and all other counsel pursuant to T.R.C.P. 21a. The parent s counsel should also 1) download and print the written objection to the designation of expert witnesses with confirmation of acceptance by the District Clerk and 2) retain proof of service to prove the method and date of service on TDFPS counsel. 7
8 ATTACHMENT 1 No. IN THE INTEREST OF IN THE DISTRICT COURT HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS CHILD(REN) TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT RESPONDENT S REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE TO PETITIONER TO: TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, Petitioner, by and through its attorneys of record, Vince Ryan, Harris Country Attorney, and, Assistant Harris County Attorney, 1019 Congress Ave., 15 th Floor, Houston, Texas Pursuant to T.R.C.P , Respondent requests that Petitioner disclose, within thirty (30) days after service of this request, the following information and material: 194.2(a) 194.2(b) 194.2(c) 194.2(e) 194.2(f) The correct names of the parties to this lawsuit. The name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties. The legal theories and, in general, the factual bases of the responding party s claims or defenses (the responding party need not marshall all evidence that may be offered at trial). The name, address, and telephone number of persons having knowledge of relevant facts, and a brief statement of each identified person s connection with the case. For any testifying expert: (1) the expert s name, address, and telephone number; (2) the subject matter on which the expert will testify; (3) the general substance of the expert s mental impressions and opinions and a brief summary of the basis for them, or if the expert is not retained by, employed by, or other wise subject to the control of the responding party, documents reflecting such information; 8
9 (4) if the expert is retained by, employed by, or other wise subject to the control of the responding party: (A) (B) all documents, tangible things, reports, models, or data compilations that have provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by or for the expert in anticipation of the expert s testimony; and the expert s current resume and bibliography (h) 194.2(i) Any and all settlement agreements as described in T.R.C.P (g). Any and all statements of persons with knowledge of relevant facts as described in T.R.C.P (h). Respectfully submitted, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By: YOUR NAME SBN: Tel: Fax: ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Request for Disclosure was served on all counsel of record pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on. YOUR NAME 9
10 ATTACHMENT 2 No. IN THE INTEREST OF IN THE DISTRICT COURT HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS CHILD(REN) TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT RESPONDENT S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PETITIONER TO: TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, Petitioner, by and through its attorneys of record, Vince Ryan, Harris Country Attorney, and, Assistant Harris County Attorney, 1019 Congress Ave., 15 th Floor, Houston, Texas Pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 192 and 196, Respondent serves the following Request for Production upon Petitioner TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, whose Response is due within thirty (30) days after the date of service on Petitioner. Respondent requests that Petitioner produce the requested documents and tangible items in the office of the undersigned counsel within the above stated time period. Respectfully submitted, By: YOUR NAME SBN: Tel: Fax: ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT 10
11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Request for Production was served on all counsel of record pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on. YOUR NAME RESPONDENT S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PETITIONER Request for Production no. 1 A complete and unaltered copy of Petitioner s case file for this matter. RESPONSE: Request for Production no. 2 Complete and legible copies of Petitioner s trial exhibits. RESPONSE: Request for Production no. 3 A complete and unaltered copy of Respondent s drug and alcohol assessment. RESPONSE: Request for Production no. 4 A complete and unaltered copy of Respondent s psychological evaluation. RESPONSE: Request for Production no. 5 A complete and unaltered copy of Respondent s psychiatric evaluation. RESPONSE: 11
12 ATTACHMENT 3 No. IN THE INTEREST OF IN THE DISTRICT COURT HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS CHILD(REN) TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT RESPONDENT S CERTIFICATE OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY TO THIS HONORABLE COURT:, Respondent in the above-entitled cause, files this Certificate of Written Discovery and certifies that the following discovery requests were served on TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, Petitioner, by and through its attorneys of record, Vince Ryan, Harris Country Attorney, and, Assistant Harris County Attorney, 1019 Congress Ave., 15 th Floor, Houston, Texas by /certified mail, return receipt requested/facsimile telecopier/hand delivery on : 1. Respondent s Request for Disclosure to Petitioner; and 2. Respondent s Request for Production to Petitioner. Respectfully submitted, By: YOUR NAME SBN: Tel: Fax: ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT 12
13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Certificate of Written discovery was served on all counsel of record pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on. YOUR NAME 13
14 ATTACHMENT 4 No. IN THE INTEREST OF IN THE DISTRICT COURT HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS CHILD(REN) TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT RESPONDENT S NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO INTRODUCTION OF TESTIMONY AS PROVIDED UNDER DAUBERT, ROBINSON AND NENNO AND REQUEST FOR GATEKEEPER HEARING TO THIS HONORABLE COURT: 1. Respondent files this Notice of Objection to Introduction of Testimony, based on the lack of relevance and reliability as provided by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 S.Ct (1993), E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex 1995), and Nenno v. State, 970 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Respondent further requests an oral hearing on the admissibility of testimony, whether live, by deposition or through written report, by the following persons designated as expert witnesses by Petitioner:
15 2. Respondent asserts that any evidence to be offered by Petitioner and any other party, including Intervenors, Attorney ad Litem, Guardian ad Litem, by the witnesses listed above is not grounded upon careful scientific methods and procedures, nor does such evidence demonstrate a careful scientific investigation upon which reliable conclusions could be based. Respondent further asserts that the conclusions and recommendations made by the witnesses listed above are not based on scientifically valid reasoning and methodology, nor does such evidence show that the witnesses have any reliable basis for their opinions which are grounded in knowledge and experience of their discipline. Respondent further asserts that the testimony of the persons listed above is not based on theories and techniques that have been properly subjected to peer review. Additionally, Respondent asserts that the witnesses listed above have failed to show that their methodology would have received any degree of acceptance within the relevant scientific community. 3. As provided by Daubert, Robinson, and Nenno, Respondent requests that an oral gatekeeper hearing be conducted by this Court, at which the burden of proof falls on Petitioner, and any other party, including Intervenors, Attorney ad Litem, Guardian ad Litem, to prove the relevance and reliability of such evidence. Based on the following factors: a. the extent to which the theory forming the basis of the opinion held by the witness has been tested; b. the extent to which the technique used by the witness in forming his or her opinion relies upon the subjective interpretation of the witness; c. whether the theory has been subjected to peer review and/or been published; d. the technique s potential rate of error; 15
16 e. whether the underlying theory or technique has been generally accepted as valid by the relevant scientific community; and f. the non-judicial uses which have been made of the theory or technique. See Robinson, 923 S.W.2d at 557. The Nenno case requires the following test for relevance of the testimony: a. whether the field of expertise is a legitimate one; b. whether the subject matter of the witness testimony is within the scope of that field; and c. whether the witness testimony properly relies upon and/or utilizes the principles in that field. See Nenno, 970 S.W.2d at 560. Respondent requests that this Court rule on this matter prior to trial in order that the parties have a reasonable opportunity to develop litigation strategy and trial tactics. WHEREFORE, Respondent prays that this Court sustain the foregoing Objection to Introduction of Testimony, and for all other relief to which Respondent may be entitled. Respondent prays for general relief. Respectfully submitted, By: YOUR NAME SBN: Tel: Fax: ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT 16
17 ORDER SETTING HEARING It is hereby ORDERED that an oral hearing on Respondent s Notice of Objection to Introduction of Testimony is set for, 20 at :00.m. before the Presiding Judge of the th District Court of Harris County, Texas. JUDGE PRESIDING CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Objection to Introduction of Testimony and Request for Gatekeeper Hearing was served on all counsel of record pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on. YOUR NAME 17
1. TRCP 194 created a new discovery tool entitled Requests for Disclosure.
Information or instructions: Request for disclosure 1. TRCP 194 created a new discovery tool entitled Requests for Disclosure. 2. Either party may file a request upon the other in order to obtain basic
More informationTHE NATIONAL CENTER FOR JUSTICE AND
THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR JUSTICE AND THE RULE OF LAW AND THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE EXPERT WITNESSES DIVIDER 6 Professor Michael Johnson OBJECTIVES: After this session, you will be able to: 1. Distinguish
More informationDISCOVERY- LOCAL RULES JUSTICE COURTS OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
DISCOVERY- LOCAL RULES JUSTICE COURTS OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS EFFECTIVE: JULY 1, 2015 TARRANT COUNTY JUSTICE COURTS - LOCAL RULES FOR DISCOVERY OBJECTIVES In accordance with law, the Justice Courts conduct
More informationNO. V. AT LAW NO. 1. Defendant(s). ELLIS COUNTY, TEXAS. FINAL PRETRIAL SUBMISSION (CPS Trial)
NO. IN THE COUNTY COURT Plaintiff(s), V. AT LAW NO. 1 Defendant(s). ELLIS COUNTY, TEXAS FINAL PRETRIAL SUBMISSION (CPS Trial) This Final Pretrial Submission must be filed no later than nine (9) days before
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:08-cr-00096-P Document 67 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID 514 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NO. 3:08-CR-0096-P
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : : Criminal No. 99-0389-01,02 (RWR) v. : : RAFAEL MEJIA, : HOMES VALENCIA-RIOS, : Defendants. : GOVERNMENT S MOTION TO
More informationCOUNTY. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) MOTION TO EXCLUDE vs. ) TESTIMONY REGARDING ) FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS, ) Defendant. ) I.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) MOTION TO EXCLUDE vs. ) TESTIMONY REGARDING ) FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS, ) Defendant. ) NOW
More informationCase4:07-cv PJH Document833-1 Filed09/09/10 Page1 of 5
Case:0-cv-0-PJH Document- Filed0/0/0 Page of 0 Robert A. Mittelstaedt (SBN 00) Jason McDonell (SBN 0) Elaine Wallace (SBN ) California Street, th Floor San Francisco, CA 0 Telephone: () - Facsimile: ()
More informationNO. V. AT LAW NO. 1. Defendant(s). ELLIS COUNTY, TEXAS. FINAL PRETRIAL SUBMISSION [Required For Bench Trials over two (2) hours]
NO. IN THE COUNTY COURT Plaintiff(s), V. AT LAW NO. 1 Defendant(s). ELLIS COUNTY, TEXAS FINAL PRETRIAL SUBMISSION [Required For Bench Trials over two (2) hours] This Final Pretrial Submission must be filed
More informationBeing an Expert Witness
Being an Expert Witness New York State Association of Professional Land Surveyors 2015 Annual Conference January 22, 2015 What Purpose do Experts Serve? Witness competent to provide testimony Favorable
More informationKeith Berkshire Berkshire Law Office, PLLC
Keith Berkshire Berkshire Law Office, PLLC (a) Preserving a Claim of Error. A party may claim error in a ruling to admit or exclude evidence only if the error affects a substantial right of the party and:
More informationUnited States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION
Case 4:13-cv-00682-ALM Document 73 Filed 12/15/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1103 United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION CORINTH INVESTOR HOLDINGS, LLC D/B/A ATRIUM MEDICAL
More informationDAUBERT & THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD/EXPERT TESTIMONY IN CRIMINAL CASES
DAUBERT & THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD/EXPERT TESTIMONY IN CRIMINAL CASES ROBERT O. DAWSON CONFERENCE ON CRIMINAL APPEALS UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF LAW MAY 9, 2013 SAMUEL E. BASSETT Minton, Burton, Bassett
More information2:12-cr SFC-MKM Doc # 227 Filed 12/06/13 Pg 1 of 12 Pg ID 1213 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:12-cr-20218-SFC-MKM Doc # 227 Filed 12/06/13 Pg 1 of 12 Pg ID 1213 United States of America, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Criminal Case No.
More informationEvidentiary Standards in the State of Illinois: The Interpretation and Implementation of Supreme Court Opinions
Evidentiary Standards in the State of Illinois: The Interpretation and Implementation of Supreme Court Opinions Barbara Figari Illinois Conference for Students of Political Science 1 Criminal cases are
More informationPART III Discovery CHAPTER 8. Overview of the Discovery Process KEY POINTS THE NATURE OF DISCOVERY THE EXTENT OF ALLOWABLE DISCOVERY
PART III Discovery CHAPTER 8 Overview of the Discovery Process The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure regulate civil discovery procedures in the state. Florida does not require supplementary responses to
More informationAuto accident Motion for Summary Judgment complete package
Auto accident Motion for Summary Judgment complete package Motion for summary judgment 1. The purpose of a summary judgment is to obtain relatively quickly either a partial or complete judgment if all
More informationCase 3:16-cv CRS-CHL Document 36 Filed 06/29/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 423
Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS-CHL Document 36 Filed 06/29/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 423 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE INSIGHT KENTUCKY PARTNERS II, L.P. vs. LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON
More informationCase 1:15-cv WJM-KLM Document 136 Filed 05/12/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:15-cv-01974-WJM-KLM Document 136 Filed 05/12/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-01974-WJM-KLM DAVID MUELLER v. Plaintiff
More informationCase 2:05-cv TJW Document 211 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:05-cv-00195-TJW Document 211 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION DIGITAL CHOICE OF TEXAS, LLC V. CIVIL NO. 2:05-CV-195(TJW)
More informationGive a brief description of case, particularly the. confession at issue and the pertinent circumstances surrounding
Innocence Legal Team 1600 S. Main Street, Suite 195 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Tel: 925 948-9000 Attorney for Defendant SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE ) Case No. OF CALIFORNIA,
More informationReporting Animal Cruelty for Veterinarians
Reporting Animal Cruelty for Veterinarians By Claudine Wilkins and Jessica Rock, Founders of Animal Law Source BACKGROUND Due to increased prosecution of animal cruelty defendants, Veterinarians are being
More informationv. GUADALUPE COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. 15-2442-CV RONALD F. A VERY, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, v. GUADALUPE COUNTY, TEXAS GUADALUPE COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Defendant. 25 JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
More informationPREVIEW PLEASE DO NOT COPY THIS DOCUMENT THANK YOU
Information & Instructions: Motion and Order for deposit of costs n order to secure attorney s fees for the attorney or guardian ad litem 1. Frequently a court appointed attorney, in order to secure attorney's
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CRIMINAL NO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CRIMINAL NO. 13-20772 Plaintiff, HONORABLE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN v. RASMIEH YOUSEF ODEH, Defendant. / GOVERNMENT
More informationExpert Witnesses in Capital Cases. by W. Erwin Spainhour Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Judicial District 19-A May 10, 2012
Expert Witnesses in Capital Cases by W. Erwin Spainhour Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Judicial District 19-A May 10, 2012 1. Cost. A significant expense for the taxpayers paid by IDS. In one case,
More informationSTATE OF VERMONT VERMONT SUPREME COURT TERM, Order Promulgating Amendments to Rules 16.2 and 26 of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure
PROPOSED STATE OF VERMONT VERMONT SUPREME COURT TERM, 2018 Order Promulgating Amendments to Rules 16.2 and 26 of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure Pursuant to the Vermont Constitution, Chapter II, Section
More informationCROSS EXAMINATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL WITNESS
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF LAW 2013 THE CAR CRASH SEMINAR FROM SIGN-UP TO SETTLEMENT July 25-26, 2013 AT&T Conference Center and Hotel at UT Austin, Texas CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL WITNESS
More informationTEXAS DISCOVERY. Brock C. Akers CHAPTER 1 LAW REVISIONS TO TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE GOVERNING DISCOVERY
TEXAS DISCOVERY Brock C. Akers CHAPTER 1 LAW 2. 1999 REVISIONS TO TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE GOVERNING DISCOVERY 3. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLANS 4. FORMS OF DISCOVERY A. Discovery Provided for by the Texas
More informationSIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE
SIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE Table of Contents INTRODUCTION...3 TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Title 1, Chapter 38...3 TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE Article I: General Provisions...4 Article IV: Relevancy
More informationNon-Scientific Expert Testimony in Child Abuse Trials
Non-Scientific Expert Testimony in Child Abuse Trials A Framework for Admissibility By Sam Tooker 24 SC Lawyer In some child abuse trials, there exists a great deal of evidence indicating that the defendant
More informationCASE NUMBER: DIV 71. It appearing that this case is at issue and can be set for trial, it is ORDERED as follows:
Plaintiff(s), vs. Defendant(s). / IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NUMBER: DIV 71 UNIFORM ORDER REGARDING SETTING CASE FOR JURY TRIAL, PRE-TRIAL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Criminal No. 99-215 ) JOSEPH P. MINERD ) GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION. Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO.
Stallion Heavy Haulers, LP v. Lincoln General Insurance Company Doc. 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION STALLION HEAVY HAULERS, LP, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-20603 Document: 00513067518 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT DEVEREAUX MACY; JOEL SANTOS, Plaintiffs - Appellants United States Court
More informationCase5:08-cv PSG Document498 Filed08/15/13 Page1 of 6
Case:0-cv-00-PSG Document Filed0// Page of 0 MICHAEL J. BETTINGER (SBN ) mike.bettinger@klgates.com TIMOTHY P. WALKER (SBN 000) timothy.walker@klgates.com HAROLD H. DAVIS, JR. (SBN ) harold.davis@klgates.com
More informationCAUSE NO. THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF [INSERT PROPERTY] JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CAUSE NO. THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF V. COUNTY, TEXAS [INSERT PROPERTY] JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, INTERROGATORIES, AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Pursuant to
More informationPreparing for Daubert Through the Life of a Case
Are You Up to the Challenge? By Ami Dwyer Meticulous attention throughout the lifecycle of a case can prevent a Daubert challenge from derailing critical evidence at trial time. Preparing for Daubert Through
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Received 12/10/2017 11:37:44 AM Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania Filed 12/10/2017 11:37:00 AM Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania 261 MD 2017 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA League of Women
More informationCourt granted Defendants motion in limine to preclude the testimony of Plaintiffs damages
Case 1:04-cv-09866-LTS-HBP Document 679 Filed 07/08/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------x IN RE PFIZER INC.
More informationFlLED SUPERIQR CGURT CF GUAM
a. FlLED SUPERIQR CGURT CF GUAM 2 3 20l8ApR PH \: CLERK of COURT By' IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 8 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, vs. JIMMY MARK CRUZ TYQUIENGCO, Defendant. Case No. CF0- DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION
More informationNO. Defendants. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF'S WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES. To:, Defendant, by and through its attorney of record,,
NO. IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW Plaintiff, V. NO. Defendants. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF'S WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES To:, Defendant, by and through its attorney of record,, Houston, Texas. Pursuant to
More informationEXPERT WITNESS: A COMPUTER SCIENCE EMPHASIS
EXPERT WITNESS: A COMPUTER SCIENCE EMPHASIS Allen Coleman David A. Dampier Department of Computer Science and Engineering Mississippi State University dampier@cse.msstate.edu Abstract Expert witness testimony
More informationHow to Testify. Qualifications for Testimony. Hugo A. Holland, Jr., J.D., CFE Prosecutor, State of Louisiana
How to Testify Qualifications for Testimony Hugo A. Holland, Jr., J.D., CFE Prosecutor, State of Louisiana 2018 Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. CPE PIN Instructions 2018 Association of Certified
More informationvs. OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS DISCOVERY AND DOCKET CONTROL PLAN FOR LEVEL 3 CASE ( PLAN )
Eff. 04/11/2014 CAUSE NO. IN THE DISTRICT COURT vs. OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS 67TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT DISCOVERY AND DOCKET CONTROL PLAN FOR LEVEL 3 CASE ( PLAN ) In accordance with Rules 166, 190 and
More information[J ] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
[J-62-2009] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT FREDERICK S. AND LYNN SUMMERS, HUSBAND AND WIFE, v. Appellees CERTAINTEED CORPORATION AND UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, RICHARD NYBECK, v.
More informationBefore HATCHETT, Chief Judge, HULL, Circuit Judge, and MOORE *, District Judge.
U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals US v PAUL PUBLISH IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 97-9302 D.C. Docket No. 1:97-CR-115-1-GET UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff(s), CASE NO.: v. DIVISION:. Defendant(s). / UNIFORM ORDER SETTING CAUSE FOR TRIAL AND
More informationAPPELLANTS REPLY BRIEF
Case No. 05-11-00967-CV ACCEPTED 225EFJ016688818 FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 12 January 20 P4:27 Lisa Matz CLERK IN THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS at Dallas, Texas QUI PHUOC HO and TONG HO Appellants,
More informationRULES OF EVIDENCE LEGAL STANDARDS
RULES OF EVIDENCE LEGAL STANDARDS Digital evidence or electronic evidence is any probative information stored or transmitted in digital form that a party to a court case may use at trial. The use of digital
More informationMOTION TO EXCLUDE UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE (Plant or root growth evidence) Defendant,, by and through her undersigned attorney, moves this Honorable
MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE (Plant or root growth evidence) Defendant,, by and through her undersigned attorney, moves this Honorable Court to exclude from this cause any testimony or evidence
More informationTEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE Effective June 14, Title, Scope, and Applicability of the Rules; Definitions
TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE Effective June 14, 2016 ARTICLE I. Rule 101. Rule 102. Rule 103. Rule 104. Rule 105. Rule 106. Rule 107. ARTICLE II. Rule 201. Rule 202. Rule 203. Rule 204. ARTICLE III. Rule 301.
More informationLitigation Unveiled Click to edit Master title style
Litigation Unveiled Click to edit Master title style Author and Presenter: Richard E. Mitchell, Esq. Equity Shareholder Chair, Higher Education Practice Group GrayRobinson, P.A. Overview of Topics I. Lawyers
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED August 26, 2010 v No. 294054 Livingston Circuit Court JEROME WALTER KOWALSKI, LC No. 08-017643-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationTEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE effective March 1, 2013
TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE effective March 1, 2013 ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS (F) a hearing on justification for pretrial detention not involving bail; RULE 101. TITLE AND SCOPE Title. These rules shall
More informationSAMPLE CAUSE NO. IN THE INTEREST OF IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHILDREN COUNTY, TEXAS CHILDREN JUDICIAL DISTRICT PETITIONER S MOTION IN LIMINE
SAMPLE CAUSE NO. IN THE INTEREST OF IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHILDREN COUNTY, TEXAS CHILDREN JUDICIAL DISTRICT PETITIONER S MOTION IN LIMINE This Petitioner s Motion in Limine is brought by the Texas Department
More informationDaubert and Rule 702: Effectively Presenting and Challenging Experts in Federal Court
Daubert and Rule 702: Effectively Presenting and Challenging Experts in Federal Court January 26, 2010 Moderator: Nicole Skarstad American Lawyer Media nskarstad@alm.com John L. Tate, Panelist A member
More informationInformation or instructions: Motion Consent of Client & Order to substitute counsel PREVIEW
Information or instructions: Motion Consent of Client & Order to substitute counsel 1. This motion allows attorneys to substitute on a case. 2. See TRCP 8, which states that the leading counsel shall be
More informationSTATE'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING COMPUTER ANIMATION
e IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, 18th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 2012-001083-CFA STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, Defendant. ----------------- / STATE'S SUPPLEMENTAL
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
E-Filed Document Dec 1 2014 16:28:06 2013-KA-01785-COA Pages: 9 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI TREVOR HOSKINS APPELLANT VS. NO. 2013-KA-01785-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF
More informationJUNK SCIENCE OR. EXPERT TESTIMONY? Clinical Professor Kate Mewhinney
JUNK SCIENCE OR. EXPERT TESTIMONY? Clinical Professor Kate Mewhinney Required Disclosures I have no relevant financial relationship with the manufacturer of any commercial products and/or providers of
More informationBEGELMAN & ORLOW, P.C. Attorneys at Law
ROSS BEGELMAN* MARC M. ORLOW JORDAN R. IRWIN REGINA D. POSERINA MEMBER NEW JERSEY & PENNSYLVANIA BARS *MEMBER NEW JERSEY, PENNSYLVANIA & NEW YORK BARS BEGELMAN & ORLOW, P.C. Attorneys at Law Cherry Hill
More informationRule 605. Competency of judge as witness. NC General Statutes - Chapter 8C Article 6 1
Article 6. Witnesses. Rule 601. General rule of competency; disqualification of witness. (a) General rule. Every person is competent to be a witness except as otherwise provided in these rules. (b) Disqualification
More informationUNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES. Senior Airman ROBERT P. WALLS United States Air Force ACM
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES v. Senior Airman ROBERT P. WALLS United States Air Force 29 July 2013 Sentence adjudged 01 October 2011 by GCM convened at Francis E. Warren
More informationInformation or instructions: Combined discovery requests, admissions, production of documents and interrogatories
Information or instructions: Combined discovery requests, admissions, production of documents and interrogatories 1. The practitioner may desire to combine Request for Admissions, Interrogatories and Request
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Plaintiff, Civil Action File No.: v. Defendant. CONSENT PROTECTIVE ORDER By stipulation and agreement of the parties,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAKE CHARLES DIVISION * * * * * * * * *
Fontenot v. Safety Council of Southwest Louisiana Doc. 131 JONI FONTENOT v. SAFETY COUNCIL OF SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAKE CHARLES DIVISION CIVIL
More informationThe Royalty Owners file this Response to Gertrude Petroleum Corporation s ( GPC )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION GERTRUDE PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant, vs. Civil Action No. 98-0001 ROGER J. ROYALTY, et.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Raymond P. Moore
358 Liberation LLC v. Country Mutual Insurance Company Doc. 62 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Raymond P. Moore Case No. 15-cv-01758-RM-STV 358 LIBERATION LLC, v.
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS BELMONT COUNTY, OHIO. : Plaintiff : vs. : FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER : Case No. Defendant :
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS BELMONT COUNTY, OHIO : Plaintiff : vs. : FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER : Case No. Defendant : This action came before the court at a final pretrial conference held on at a.m./p.m.,
More informationDefending Toxic Tort Claims
Defending Toxic Tort Claims Claims Defense Update Seminar Thursday, September 19, 2013 Presented by: Mark Schultz, Esquire Richard Akin, Esquire mark.schultz@henlaw.com richard.akin@henlaw.com 239.344.1168
More informationAdmissibility of Electronic Evidence
Admissibility of Electronic Evidence PAUL W. GRIMM AND KEVIN F. BRADY 2018 Potential Authentication Methods Email, Text Messages, and Instant Messages Trade inscriptions (902(7)) Certified copies of business
More informationLegalFormsForTexas.Com
Information or instructions: Motion & order to retain case on the docket 1. The following motion is required to prevent the case from being dismissed for lack of prosecution. Courts routinely dismiss cases
More informationJames McNamara v. Kmart Corp
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-14-2010 James McNamara v. Kmart Corp Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 09-2216 Follow this
More informationMOTION TO EXCLUDE UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE/MOTION IN LIMINE (CHLOROFORM)
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, v Defendant. CASE NO.: DIVISION: JUDGE: vs. MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE/MOTION IN LIMINE
More informationCase 2:11-cv RBS -DEM Document 94 Filed 10/31/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 2118
Case 2:11-cv-00546-RBS -DEM Document 94 Filed 10/31/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 2118 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division CORBIN BERNSEN Plaintiff, v. ACTION NO.
More informationAPPELLATE ISSUES PRESENTED APRIL 15, 2017 THE 7 TH ANNUAL DEFINITIVE AD LITEM SEMINAR IN DFPS CASES HOUSTON, TEXAS
APPELLATE ISSUES Formulation of the Case for Appeal, Preservation of Error and Perfection of Appeal; Ethical Obligations; Effective Assistance of Counsel PRESENTED APRIL 15, 2017 AT THE 7 TH ANNUAL DEFINITIVE
More informationJUNK SCIENCE OR. EXPERT TESTIMONY? Clinical Professor Kate Mewhinney
JUNK SCIENCE OR. EXPERT TESTIMONY? Clinical Professor Kate Mewhinney Required Disclosures I have no relevant financial relationship with the manufacturer of any commercial products and/or providers of
More informationFor Preview Only - Please Do Not Copy
Information & Instructions: Master Interrogatories 1. The interrogatories in this form are designed for selection to fit the case. 2. The questions are intended to show the range of questions that may
More informationCase 3:16-md VC Document 2866 Filed 02/28/19 Page 1 of 7
Case :-md-0-vc Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 ANDRUS WAGSTAFF, PC Aimee H. Wagstaff (SBN 0 Aimee.wagstaff@andruswagstaff.com David J. Wool (SBN David.Wool@andruswagstaff.com W. Alaska Drive Lakewood, CO
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-10-00515-CR Charles Brown, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 427TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1-DC-09-302842,
More informationUNIFORM ORDER SETTING CASE FOR JURY TRIAL; PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE AND REQUIRING PRETRIAL MATTERS TO BE COMPLETED
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. CIVIL DIVISION 37 Plaintiff(s), vs. Defendant(s). / UNIFORM ORDER SETTING CASE FOR JURY TRIAL; PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE
More informationscc Doc 860 Filed 03/06/12 Entered 03/06/12 16:37:03 Main Document Pg 1 of 14
10-15973-scc Doc 860 Filed 03/06/12 Entered 03/06/12 163703 Main Document Pg 1 of 14 Peter A. Ivanick Allison H. Weiss 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019 Tel (212) 259-8000 Fax (212)
More informationQualifying a Witness as an Expert Using the Daubert Standard
Qualifying a Witness as an Expert Using the Daubert Standard The focus is not about qualifications of expert The focus is on the admissibility of the expert s opinion Michael H. Gottesman, Jason Daubert's
More informationEffective January 1, 2016
RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COMMISSION ON CHARACTER AND FITNESS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA Effective January 1, 2016 SECTION 1: PURPOSE The primary purposes of character and fitness screening before
More informationINVESTIGATIONS, ATTORNEYS & PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS
INVESTIGATIONS, ATTORNEYS & PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS Wes Bearden, CEO Attorney & Licensed Investigator Bearden Investigative Agency, Inc. www.beardeninvestigations.com PRIVILEGE KEY POINTS WE ALL KNOW
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Evidence And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question While driving their cars, Paula
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO ORDER AND REASONS
McCrary v. John W. Stone Oil Distributor, L.L.C. Doc. 58 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JAMES MCCRARY CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 14-880 JOHN W. STONE OIL DISTRIBUTOR, L.L.C. SECTION
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF
Innocence Legal Team 00 S. Main Street, Suite Walnut Creek, CA Tel: -000 Attorney for Defendant SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Case No. CALIFORNIA, ) ) Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
NORTH CAROLINA WAKE COUNTY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) VS. ) REQUEST FOR ) VOLUNTARY DISCOVERY ) (ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR ) DISCOVERY) Defendant.
More informationCase 2:11-cr KJM Document 334 Filed 08/12/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cr-00-kjm Document Filed 0// Page of ZENIA K. GILG, SBN HEATHER L. BURKE, SBN 0 nd 0 Montgomery Street, Floor San Francisco CA Telephone: /-00 Facsimile: /-0 Attorneys for Defendant BRIAN JUSTIN
More informationGENERAL ORDER FOR LUCAS COUNTY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. damages for alleged exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products; that many of the
GENERAL ORDER FOR LUCAS COUNTY ASBESTOS LITIGATION It appearing that there are certain actions pending in this Court in which plaintiffs claim damages for alleged exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
Case 4:08-cv-03332 Document 18 Filed in TXSD on 12/31/2008 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY; BOYD L. RICHIE, in his capacity
More informationDiscovery in Justice Court
Discovery in Justice Court Bronson Tucker, Director of Curriculum bt16@txstate.edu Resources Discovery in Civil Cases TRCP 500.9 Justice Court Discovery TRCP 190-205 County/District Discovery Rules (Guidance)
More informationPennsylvania Code Rules Rule and
Pennsylvania Code Rules Rule 4003.3 and 4003.5 Reference Sources: http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/231/chapter4000/s4003.3.html http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/231/chapter4000/s4003.5.html Rule 4003.3.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Case 4:11-cv-02451 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/29/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION LORI COOPER, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION NO. vs. Jury
More informationCase 3:16-md VC Document 1100 Filed 02/05/18 Page 1 of 5. February 5, In re Roundup Prod. Liab. Litig., No.
Case :16-md-0741-VC Document 1100 Filed 0/05/18 Page 1 of 5 Aimee H. Wagstaff, Esq. Licensed in Colorado and California Aimee.Wagstaff@AndrusWagstaff.com 7171 W. Alaska Drive Lakewood, CO 806 Office: (0)
More informationLitigation ATTORNEY CLIENT RELATIONS GENERAL PROCEDURES & PRACTICE. continued on page 2
Litigation Hundreds of Louisiana litigators already successfully modify Texas forms to work in Louisiana. ProDoc makes it far easier by combining hundreds of forms from its Texas Litigation Library with
More informationOklahoma High School Mock Trial Program RULES OF EVIDENCE ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS. Rule 101. Scope
Oklahoma High School Mock Trial Program RULES OF EVIDENCE ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS Rule 101. Scope These Simplified Federal Rules of Evidence (Mock Trial Version) govern the trial proceedings of the
More informationTort Reform (2) The pleading specifically asserts that the medical care has and all medical records
Tort Reform 2011 Medical Malpractice Changes (SB 33; S.L. 2011 400) o Enhanced Special Pleading Requirement (Rule 9(j)) Rule 9(j) of the Rules of Civil Procedure now requires medical malpractice complaints
More information