§Why CasetextPricing

Bozella v. The County of Dutchess et al

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 224 MOTION in Limine . to preclude as inadmissible hearsay - the email purportedly from Wayne Moseley to Ross Firsenbaum, dated April 23, 2012. Document

9 Cited authorities

  1. Arlio v. Lively

    474 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 98 times
    Holding that a district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of similar arbitration proceedings in a police officer's § 1983 First Amendment retaliatory firing claim

  2. People v. Robinson

    89 N.Y.2d 648 (N.Y. 1997)   Cited 99 times
    Holding that the exclusion of defendant's fiancee's grand jury testimony, which indicated that fiancee was an eyewitness and that sexual contact between defendant and third party was consensual, violated defendant's due process rights where declarant was unavailable and testimony bore sufficient indica of reliability

  3. Donnelly v. United States

    228 U.S. 243 (1913)   Cited 338 times
    Holding California's admission did not affect federal jurisdiction over murder on Indian reservation

  4. U.S. v. Chan

    184 F. Supp. 2d 337 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)   Cited 50 times
    Recognizing that a declaration against penal interest contains guarantees of trustworthiness where, among other factors, it was given under oath

  5. Sadowsky v. Chat Noir, Inc.

    64 A.D.2d 697 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)   Cited 7 times

    July 31, 1978 In consolidated negligence actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., (1) defendant Nadine Sadowsky and plaintiffs Lewis and Rita Sadowsky appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 15, 1977, which denied their respective motion and application to direct a nonparty witness to appear for an examination before trial and (2) Lewis and Rita Sadowsky appeal from so much of a further order of the same court, dated January 26, 1978, as granted defendants'

  6. Rule 403 - Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons

    Fed. R. Evid. 403   Cited 22,526 times   81 Legal Analyses
    Adopting a similar standard, but requiring the probative value to be "substantially outweighed" by these risks

  7. Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,107 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

  8. Rule 401 - Test for Relevant Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 401   Cited 13,398 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Providing that evidence is relevant if " it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action"

  9. Rule 802 - The Rule Against Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 802   Cited 3,826 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing federal statutes, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or Supreme Court rules as sources for exceptions to the rule against hearsay