Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The California Evidence Code (abbreviated to Evid. Code in the California Style Manual) is a California code that was enacted by the California State Legislature on May 18, 1965 [1] to codify the formerly mostly common-law law of evidence. Section 351 of the Code effectively abolished any remnants of the law of evidence not explicitly included ...
Note that under California Evidence Code ("CEC") §§769, 770, and 1235, prior inconsistent statements may be used for both impeachment and as substantive evidence, even if they were not originally made under oath at a formal proceeding, as long as "the witness was so examined while testifying as to give him an opportunity to explain or to deny ...
The best evidence rule has its origins in the 18th century case Omychund v Barker (1780) 1 Atk, 21, 49; 26 ER 15, 33. Wherein Lord Harwicke stated that no evidence was admissible unless it was "the best that the nature of the case will allow."
Best evidence rule: requires that the original source of evidence is required, if available; for example, rather than asking a witness about the contents of a document, the actual document should be entered into evidence. A full original document should be introduced into evidence instead of a copy, but judges often allow copies if there is no ...
The motions can be made in a California Superior Court under California Evidence Code 1043-1046. [5] Notwithstanding the broad nature of the discovery that the associated court rule and statute provide, getting records can be problematic. A Pitchess motion contains numerous parts. [6]
California has a powerful tradition of popular sovereignty, which is reflected in the frequent use of initiatives to amend the state constitution, as well as the former state constitutional requirement [18] (repealed in 1966 and enacted as Government Code Section 100) that all government process shall be styled in the name of "the People of the ...
In a recent case in California, a federal judge called the case before her "objectively specious," yet didn't approve the award of legal fees. The result: Even when a company's trade secrets claim ...
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 804(b)(3) provides: "A statement that: (A) a reasonable person in the declarant's position would have made only if the person believed it to be true because, when made, it was so contrary to the declarant's proprietary or pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to invalidate the declarant's claim against someone else or to expose the declarant to ...