FREE AND STUDY GAMES ABOUT SS V. TH CASE LAW

PDF Download

FREE AND STUDY GAMES ABOUT SS V. TH CASE LAW

EXAM QUESTIONS

Qs and Ans Expert- Explanation

This Exam contains:

-Guarantee passing score -33 Questions and Answers -format set of multiple-choice -Expert- Explanation

Question 1: Haug v. Sanders (2002)

Answer:

Fact finders may rely on both direct and circumstantial evidence equally.

Question 2: Rogers v. Mars (2020)

Answer:

Decedent statements aren't plaintiff or defendant statements but may still be admissible under other rules.

Question 3: McKanna v. Malburg (2019)

Answer:

The Midlands Rules of Evidence govern even if federal rules differ.

Question 4: Shakur v. Wallace (1994)

Answer:

Fact finders determine credibility and may accept or reject parts of a witness's testimony.

Question 5: Mehta v. Wesley (2015)

Answer:

Custodial documents can be used to establish admissibility of other evidence, but require proper foundation to be entered as evidence.

Question 6: Filteau v. Wanek (1992)

Answer:

Evidence allowing a reasonable jury to identify the speaker makes a statement admissible.

Question 7: Martinez v. Martinez (2015)

Answer:

Plaintiff doesn't need to identify co-facilitators to prove defendant's culpability in facilitation.

Question 8: Kaplan v. Sikora (2013)

Answer:

Statements by a party's agent on matters within their scope are non-hearsay if made within the employment period.

Question 9: Jones v. Narendra (1935)

Answer:

Heirs are determined at death; a revoked or unexecuted will has no effect.

Question 10: Bearinger v. Rajan (2009)

Answer:

Defendants who facilitated a death are culpable, including actions like aiding or inducing.

Question 11: Jeff v. Wario's Toolkit (1974)

Answer:

Plaintiffs in civil cases must prove claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

Question 12: Petrillo v. Martini and Peony Estates (2021)

Answer:

Labels on commercial products are reliable and admissible despite hearsay concerns.

Question 13: Maloney v. Soucar (1974)

Answer:

Acquittals or lack of charges don't prevent Slayer Statute cases, and such criminal outcomes are inadmissible as evidence.

Question 14: Krent v. Lions, Inc. (2009)

Answer:

"Reverse character evidence" on third-party suspects can be admitted if its relevance outweighs prejudice.

Question 15: Ginger v. Heisman (2015)

Answer:

Emails and texts are authenticated if they can reasonably be attributed to the sender.

Question 16: Caltry v. Bridgeman (1985)

Answer:

Culpable action in Slayer cases includes knowingly, purposefully, or facilitating the decedent's death.

Question 17: Chambers v. By the Book Publishing, Ltd. (2015)

Answer:

Hearsay applies only when an out-of-court statement is offered for its truth.

Question 18: Verbaarschott v. Lee (2005)

Answer:

Admitted f allegations in pleadings remain relevant and useful to the jury.

Question 19: Seferian v. Morales (2010)

Answer:

Statements by third parties in a conspiracy aren't admissible under MRE 801(d)(2)(E) in Slayer cases.

Question 20: Salter v. Kidwai (1992)

Answer:

Slayer Statute focuses on actions, not motives; motive may still be relevant but is not required.

Question 21: Farrant v. Westaway (1994)

Answer:

Statements for identification, not truth, are non-hearsay.

Question 22: Zomerfeld v. Noto (2012)

Answer:

Courts may use inadmissible evidence to determine if other evidence is admissible.

Question 23: State v. B.F. De la Porta (2024)

Answer:

Hearsay requires an assertion of fact intended to establish the truth of that fact.

Question 24: State v. Sinclair (2016)

Answer:

Jurors may compare handwriting samples with or without expert aid.

Question 25: Brock v. Blom (1965)

Answer:

A conviction for crimes like murder or manslaughter qualifies under the Slayer Statute; absent a conviction, proceedings must follow Slayer Statute protocol.

Question 26: Knox v. Revoir (1995)

Answer:

MRE 801(d)(2) statements don't have to be against the party's interest to be admissible.

Question 27: Estate of Hamilton v. Walton (2009)

Answer:

Psychological conditions don't qualify as character evidence under MRE 404(a)(1).

Question 28: America's Best Cookie v. International House of Waffles (2011)

Answer:

Hearsay includes statements by witnesses who testify in the trial.