Lloyd v. American Export Lines, Inc. case brief

1. Lloyd v. American Export Lines, Inc. (US 1978) – predecessor in interest.
1. at issue: who was the aggressor as b/t A and L; AEL wants to introduce evidence from previous hearing in which L testified and A didn’t have oppty to cross; at that hearing, L said that A started the fight; A argues that he didn’t have oppty to cross.
2. holding: evidence admitted – A didn’t cross L, but US govt did.
• lawyer from Coast Guard was seeking to prove that A started the fight, so ct here views him as a predecessor in interest.
3. Stern concurrence
• disagreement with majority – points out that they’re wrong, in regard to the legislative history; CG isn’t a predecessor in int, since he’s trying to get at the truth, not advocating for A, didn’t have the same motives.
• why Stern concurred – “catchall” exception, FRE 807 (if a statement that doesn’t fit w/in a category has indicia of trustworthiness, can be admitted).
4. impact of this holding – judges can read “predecessor in int” to have very few teeth
• judges want to allow valuable testimony; collapse “predecessor in int” into motive and oppty as though they were synonymous.
• though note: most cts probably wouldn’t hold as Lloyd did.