Evidence

Legalizing Fraud in Michigan Contract Law

Posted onApril 1, 2012February 17, 2013AuthorAdministrator

In 1998, the Michigan Court of Appeals decided a case that dramatically changed the parol evidence rule in Michigan. In UAW-GM Human Resource Center v. KSL Recreation Corporation (KSL), the court reinterpreted the parol evidence rule to hold that because of an express merger clause, evidence of an alleged collateral agreement was inadmissible to change the terms of the contract. Even evidence of fraud was barred in this case. The parol evidence rule bars admission of written or oral evidence that would contradict the terms of the integrated agreement. In most states, however, there is an exception to allow evidence that suggests fraud. The majority opinion in KSL sharply limits this exception. Read More …

Posted onDecember 1, 2011May 20, 2012AuthorAdministrator

This Article discusses significant developments in the law of evidence during the Survey period. The Article focuses primarily on published decisions of the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court. To the extent they discuss significant issues of Michigan evidence law, however, unpublished decisions and decisions by the federal courts are also discussed. Read More …

Evidence

Posted onSeptember 1, 2011February 17, 2013AuthorAdministrator

Download

Survival of the Fittest? The Origins and Evolution of the Substantial-Similarity Doctrine

Posted onJune 11, 2011February 17, 2013AuthorAdministrator

The substantial-similarity doctrine had its origins in the nineteenth century, arising as a way of aiding courts in determining whether accident re-creation evidence, either through actual re-creation or analysis of other similar accidents, is relevant and admissible. In recent decades, the doctrine has become an enigma for some courts, in part because its foundational principles had become so well understood that for many years they were never expressly stated. A small but growing number of courts are replacing this useful tool for evaluating evidence with a near-blanket rule of exclusion that rejects relevant and reliable evidence. A review of the doctrine’s birth and evolution, combined with a series of thought-experiments, helps define the appropriate bounds for the doctrine. The substantial-similarity doctrine, in its original form, is defended against the emerging trends towards blanket rules, both in terms of coherency of the legal system and in terms of product safety. Read More …

Evidence

Posted onDecember 10, 2010May 20, 2012AuthorAdministrator

This Article discusses significant developments in the law of evidence during the Survey period. The Article focuses primarily on published decisions of the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court. To the extent that they discuss significant issues of Michigan evidence law, however, unpublished decisions and decisions by the federal courts are also discussed.

The Michigan courts were relatively quiet during this Survey period on evidentiary issues. Although the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a number of decisions addressing issues of relevance, other acts evidence, and expert testimony, the Survey period is best characterized by what the Michigan Supreme Court failed to do, passing on several opportunities to clarify the law with respect to other acts evidence in domestic abuse and sexual assault cases, as well as with respect to hearsay and confrontation issues. Read More …

An Analysis of Federal Rule of Evidence 502 and its Early Application

Posted onSeptember 1, 2009May 28, 2012AuthorAdministrator

On September 19, 2008, President George W. Bush signed S.2450, a bill sent to him by the 110th Congress. The new law was enacted to “amend the Federal Rules of Evidence to address the waiver of the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine” by adding a new Rule 502 to the Federal Rules of Evidence. This Paper reviews the background and need for a new law, evaluates the rule itself, and analyzes its impact in the fifteen months since it became effective. First, this Paper briefly explains the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine and discusses the development of privilege law in federal courts prior to the enactment of Rule 502. It continues by highlighting some of the significant problems that led Congress to conclude that the new rule was necessary. The next part of this Paper provides a detailed analysis of the rule itself and considers the choice-of-law and constitutional implications the rule raises. The final part takes a close look at the rule’s early application, through the lens of several judicial decisions, and offers a framework to help practitioners and courts properly apply the rule. Read More …