Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Although the concept of rebuttal is simple, it is rarely so in practice. After the defense rests, most jurisdictions allow the plaintiff the opportunity to rebut new points introduced to the jury during the defendant's case. Courts unanimously agree that the decision to allow an expert to testify on rebuttal is a discretionary one, and we shall examine here the factors courts consider when determining the propriety of permitting a rebuttal expert witness to testify. There are few appellate decisions tackling the issue of rebuttal experts systematically; this is simply not a well-developed area of the law. Nevertheless, a survey of decisions around the country yields key insights regarding the considerations every trial lawyer must make when assessing the propriety of offering a rebuttal witness (as a plaintiff), or filing a motion to strike such a witness (as a defendant).
Despite the lack of consistency in reported cases considering whether to allow rebuttal experts, there is a general agreement on at least one proposition: Where an expert has been properly disclosed prior to trial, it is almost always an abuse of discretion for the court to deny the plaintiff an opportunity to present a rebuttal expert, at least where the proffered testimony is non-cumulative. One state appellate court has even recognized rebuttal testimony as a “matter of right” where new facts are introduced during the opponent's case. Teller v. Schepens, 518 N.E.2d 868, 870 (Mass. App. Ct. 1988). On the other hand, no such right exists to present rebuttal evidence for the sole purpose of supporting a party's affirmative case. Id. Accordingly, most courts agree that the purpose of rebuttal expert testimony is to address new matters brought during the defense's case-in-chief rather than to “bolster the plaintiff's case-in-chief.” Id. at 871. In the absence of timely disclosure, however, courts have applied various factors in reaching conclusions regarding the admissibility of rebuttal experts.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
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.
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.
A common question that commercial landlords and tenants face is which of them is responsible for a repair to the subject premises. These disputes often center on whether the repair is "structural" or "nonstructural."