Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival and
Research Center, Inc. case brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
588 F.2d 626
CASE SYNOPSIS: Appeal from the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by
plaintiffs in a case involving the exclusion of conclusionary
statements against interest.
FACTS: The case involved a civil action for damages arising out of an alleged attack by a wolf on a child. The focus on appeal was the correctness of three rulings that excluded conclusionary statements against interest. Two of them were made by a defendant, who was also an employee of the corporate defendant; and the third was in the form of a statement appearing in the records of a board meeting of the corporate defendant.
ANALYSIS:
On appeal, the court ruled that relevant evidence was usually prejudicial to the cause of the side against which it was presented, and that the prejudice which concerned the court was unreasonable prejudice. The court held that Fed. R. Evid. 403 did not warrant the exclusion of the evidence of defendant employee statements as against himself or defendant corporation.
CONCLUSION: The court reversed the lower court and remanded the case stating that Fed. R. Evid. 403 did not warrant the exclusion of the evidence of defendant employee statements as against himself or defendant corporation.
FACTS: The case involved a civil action for damages arising out of an alleged attack by a wolf on a child. The focus on appeal was the correctness of three rulings that excluded conclusionary statements against interest. Two of them were made by a defendant, who was also an employee of the corporate defendant; and the third was in the form of a statement appearing in the records of a board meeting of the corporate defendant.
ANALYSIS:
On appeal, the court ruled that relevant evidence was usually prejudicial to the cause of the side against which it was presented, and that the prejudice which concerned the court was unreasonable prejudice. The court held that Fed. R. Evid. 403 did not warrant the exclusion of the evidence of defendant employee statements as against himself or defendant corporation.
CONCLUSION: The court reversed the lower court and remanded the case stating that Fed. R. Evid. 403 did not warrant the exclusion of the evidence of defendant employee statements as against himself or defendant corporation.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment