§Why CasetextPricing

Plaintiff'S/Cross-Defendants' Motion In Limine #3 To Exclude Declaration of Marilyn Leal From Evidence

Motion

11 Cited authorities

  1. U.S. v. Cardascia

    951 F.2d 474 (2d Cir. 1991)   Cited 240 times
    Holding a resignation letter to be inadmissible hearsay because, "[u]nlike a legally operative statement . . . [it's] significance does not lie solely in the fact that it was made[, but rather] the letter was sought to be introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted, that is, Martorelli resigned as assistant vice-president of the bank. . . ."

  2. Shepard v. United States

    290 U.S. 96 (1933)   Cited 418 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that hearsay testimony regarding the declarant's intended future acts or present state of mind is admissible

  3. McInnis v. Fairfield Cmtys., Inc.

    458 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir. 2006)   Cited 112 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding employer unreasonable when in response to plaintiff's complaints, employer focused on plaintiff's past misconduct

  4. Wagner v. Cnty. of Maricopa

    747 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2013)   Cited 56 times
    Holding that reversal is required only if the trial court's evidentiary ruling was "both erroneous and prejudicial"

  5. United States v. Cohen

    631 F.2d 1223 (5th Cir. 1981)   Cited 102 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting argument that same federal statute required showing of additional act beyond act of assuming or pretending to be a federal officer and noting that the subject of the statute was both a state of mind and an action

  6. U.S. v. Samaniego

    345 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2003)   Cited 45 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the proponent established that the declarant was unavailable through the testimony of his sister and mother, who explained that they tried and failed to contact him

  7. U.S. v. Barraza

    576 F.3d 798 (8th Cir. 2009)   Cited 36 times
    Noting a similar distinction from Sithithongtham

  8. U.S. v. Carter

    910 F.2d 1524 (7th Cir. 1990)   Cited 68 times
    Holding that in Illinois, robbery is a crime of violence under the USSG "because it is defined as the taking of property 'by the use of force or by threatening the imminent use of force'"

  9. U.S. v. Harvey

    959 F.2d 1371 (7th Cir. 1992)   Cited 27 times
    Holding that a defendant "cannot complain about the district court's `decision' to refuse to admit evidence that he never moved to admit"

  10. Estate of Anderson

    185 Cal. 700 (Cal. 1921)   Cited 65 times

    S. F. No. 9071. May 20, 1921. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Sonoma County denying admission of a will to probate. George H. Cabaniss, Judge. Reversed. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. R.L. Thompson and R.M. Barrett for Appellant. J.R. Leppo, Kellogg Kyle and Roy W. Stoddard for Respondent. OLNEY, J. This is an appeal from an order refusing the admission to probate of a certain holographic instrument purporting to be the will of Hazel Anderson, deceased. The order

  11. Rule 803 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness

    Fed. R. Evid. 803   Cited 13,005 times   85 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities