Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A Sample of Effective <i>Voir Dire</i>
In Parts One and Two of this article, we discussed the strategies involved in deciding when to question the opposing party's expert; during preliminary voir dire or during cross examination. We noted that, in a jury trial, it is usually prudent to wait until cross-examination to attack the expert, so that the jury can see where the holes in the witness's qualifications and conclusions are. But sometimes, questioning during voir dire is preferable, especially when the result is likely to be the witness disqualification to testify as an expert.
Questioning During Voir Dire
The following exchange is a slightly modified transcript of a voir dire that was effective in precluding a proposed witness from testifying as an expert. For purposes of this exchange, a brief description of the case is necessary: The plaintiff was a patient of the defendant physician, a family practitioner, for several years. In July 1997, the plaintiff presented to the defendant physician indicating his desire to have an orthopedic surgeon perform elective surgery to address his chronic neck pain. The plaintiff had a history of HIV/AIDS; however, because he was stable, there was no contraindication to the proposed surgery, and the defendant physician cleared the plaintiff for surgery. The co-defendant orthopedic surgeon performed the surgery that same month. Following surgery, the plaintiff developed sepsis and lung infection and ultimately died of septic shock. The plaintiff's expert criticized the defendant's management of post-operative wound and lung infections.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.