<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.blogger.com/styles/atom.css" type="text/css"?><feed xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom' xmlns:openSearch='http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/' xmlns:georss='http://www.georss.org/georss' xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' xmlns:thr='http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0'><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5882947508854431385</id><updated>2011-11-21T10:36:58.471-08:00</updated><category term='vague'/><category term='FRE 1006'/><category term='jury instructions'/><category term='Summary Evidence'/><category term='price gouging'/><title type='text'>Appellate Decisions</title><subtitle type='html'>Appellate Decisions: Reviewing recent changes in caselaw in Mississippi and the 5th Circuit.</subtitle><link rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://appellatedecisions.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5882947508854431385/posts/default?max-results=100'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://appellatedecisions.blogspot.com/'/><link rel='hub' href='http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/'/><author><name>Baskin Jones</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/07110644550134897193</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><generator version='7.00' uri='http://www.blogger.com'>Blogger</generator><openSearch:totalResults>5</openSearch:totalResults><openSearch:startIndex>1</openSearch:startIndex><openSearch:itemsPerPage>100</openSearch:itemsPerPage><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5882947508854431385.post-1417043547955190120</id><published>2011-06-05T20:30:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2011-06-05T20:39:12.961-07:00</updated><title type='text'>Expert Backdoor Evidence</title><content type='html'>Edward M. O'Keefe v. Biloxi Casino Corp. NO.  2009-C A-01185-C&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;MRE 703&lt;br /&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt; &lt;br /&gt;The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to him at or before the hearing.  If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In a recent Slip and Fall case the Mississippi Supreme Court enumerated MRE 703 and allowed that experts can base opinions on facts or data that are not admissible in evidence, but MRE 703 cannot be used to "backdoor" evidence that would otherise not be admissible or has been disallowed by motion in limine. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO70409.pdf&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5882947508854431385-1417043547955190120?l=appellatedecisions.blogspot.com' alt='' /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://appellatedecisions.blogspot.com/feeds/1417043547955190120/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://appellatedecisions.blogspot.com/2011/06/expert-backdoor-evidence.html#comment-form' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5882947508854431385/posts/default/1417043547955190120'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5882947508854431385/posts/default/1417043547955190120'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://appellatedecisions.blogspot.com/2011/06/expert-backdoor-evidence.html' title='Expert Backdoor Evidence'/><author><name>Baskin Jones</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/07110644550134897193</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5882947508854431385.post-61489337132497404</id><published>2011-04-15T17:46:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2011-04-15T18:30:05.454-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='jury instructions'/><title type='text'>Jury Instructions in Civil Cases</title><content type='html'>&lt;div&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;In, &lt;a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=xrautydab&amp;amp;et=1105164553724&amp;amp;s=689&amp;amp;e=001H2j-TvSY3l3iwjxjAqT4_0tq6UXTdd3BmUY_Y_C1R1BVkgPVvz2zES2gluoLLQYZjvKyMPZcuaN_MLG9JZK99x0hyHjMjKN2gSOa91DscNZgdx09SaCjLLqq9yFzGd-X_k1Jv7cR54wPJNbnP4A-tQq-_BkmBMKZ"&gt;Dunn v. Yeager&lt;/a&gt; the Supreme Court of Mississippi looked at the larger picture of Jury instructions in Civil cases.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;Typically regarding jury instructions, the trial court possesses considerable discretion to decide what is fair and equitable to both parties. The purpose of a jury instruction is to see that “the  jury was  fairly  instructed  and  that each party’s proof-grounded theory of  the   case was placed before   it.”     [Splain v . Hine s, 609 So. 2d 1234, 1239  (Miss. 1992)]  (citing Rester v. Lott, 566 So. 2d 1266, 1269 (Miss. 1990)).   We  ask whether  the   instruction at  issue contained a  correct  statement of  law and was warranted by  the  evidence. . . . In analyzing the aggregate jury instructions, “defects  in  specific   instructions will not mandate reversal when all of the instructions, taken as a whole fairly– although not perfectly  – announce  the applicable  primary rules of  law.”&lt;/blockquote&gt;The court goes on to examine the jury instructions given by each side for informed consent, and tests just how much discretion the court has in its choice of instructions.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5882947508854431385-61489337132497404?l=appellatedecisions.blogspot.com' alt='' /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://appellatedecisions.blogspot.com/feeds/61489337132497404/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://appellatedecisions.blogspot.com/2011/04/jury-instructions-in-civil-cases.html#comment-form' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5882947508854431385/posts/default/61489337132497404'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5882947508854431385/posts/default/61489337132497404'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://appellatedecisions.blogspot.com/2011/04/jury-instructions-in-civil-cases.html' title='Jury Instructions in Civil Cases'/><author><name>Baskin Jones</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/07110644550134897193</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5882947508854431385.post-2169612458222907653</id><published>2011-03-10T14:48:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2011-03-10T15:03:06.006-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='vague'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='price gouging'/><title type='text'>Mississippi's Price Gouging Statute Upheld as Constitutional</title><content type='html'>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span class="Apple-style-span"&gt;&lt;span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 24px;"&gt;  After Hurricane Katrina the price of gas in Mississippi gas stations jumped by as much as 40 cents a gallon. As a result the Mississippi Legislature passed a bill which says that during a time of emergency, goods and services shouldn't cost more than the ordinary price for similar items "in the same market area at or immediately before the declaration of a state of emergency or local emergency."&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;span class="Apple-style-span"&gt;&lt;span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 24px;"&gt;  The statute was tested when the Attorney General brought suit against Fair Oil co. and a judge agreed with Fair hope that the statute was unconstitutional because the phrases "same market area" and  "at or immediately before" where too broad and vague enough to be considered unconstitutional.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 24px; "&gt;The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case stating that "The alleged conduct being prosecuted is the raising of prices after the declaration of a state of emergency, absent justification," and this even without stated time and geographical restrictions in the statute.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div id="articlePagination" style="text-align: center; font-size: 12px; font-weight: normal; font-family: georgia; line-height: 24px; "&gt;&lt;div class="left"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="page"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5882947508854431385-2169612458222907653?l=appellatedecisions.blogspot.com' alt='' /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://appellatedecisions.blogspot.com/feeds/2169612458222907653/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://appellatedecisions.blogspot.com/2011/03/mississippis-price-gouging-statute.html#comment-form' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5882947508854431385/posts/default/2169612458222907653'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5882947508854431385/posts/default/2169612458222907653'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://appellatedecisions.blogspot.com/2011/03/mississippis-price-gouging-statute.html' title='Mississippi&apos;s Price Gouging Statute Upheld as Constitutional'/><author><name>Baskin Jones</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/07110644550134897193</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5882947508854431385.post-8965296289130597382</id><published>2011-03-03T08:04:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2011-03-03T08:21:21.947-08:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='FRE 1006'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='Summary Evidence'/><title type='text'>Summary Evidence</title><content type='html'>In the recent case of United States v. Whitfield, 590 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. Dec. 11, 2009)(No. 07-60748) it was found that where records records were voluminous and inconvenient to use if not summarized the summary of these documents could be permissible so long as this summary is not simply allowing the Government to repeat its entire case-in-chief shortly before jury deliberations.&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;  To use the word voluminous to refer to the amount of paper involved in any case involving transactions over a period of time is usually understatement. When I worked as a runner at a large Defense firm there was an empty office that was once called the "War Room" but was buried under boxes when the firm picked up a large corporate transactions case. There were probably 60 bankers boxes filled with discovery all of which had to be sifted through to prove damages in the case. &lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;p class="Rule" style="font-size: 12pt; margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 47px; margin-bottom: 9pt; margin-left: 20px; font-family: Arial; color: black; font-weight: bold; line-height: 15px; "&gt;Federal Rules of Evidence Rule &lt;span class="RuleNumber" field="Rule Number" style="margin-top: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; font-weight: bold; "&gt;1006&lt;/span&gt;. Summaries&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class="Text-Level1" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: black; margin-right: 34px; margin-left: 20px; line-height: 15px; "&gt;The contents of voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs which cannot conveniently be examined in court may be presented in the form of a chart, summary, or calculation. The originals, or duplicates, shall be made available for examination or copying, or both, by other parties at reasonable time and place. The court may order that they be produced in court.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;  The Court is right to add the repetition component to the rule because if it were not a consideration either side would be able to present evidence, summarize it, present more evidence, summarize it, then summarize both together before arguing their entire case in closing arguments. The rule will save time for the court and may prevent an unfair advantage from being obtained.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;    &lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5882947508854431385-8965296289130597382?l=appellatedecisions.blogspot.com' alt='' /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://appellatedecisions.blogspot.com/feeds/8965296289130597382/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://appellatedecisions.blogspot.com/2011/03/summary-evidence.html#comment-form' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5882947508854431385/posts/default/8965296289130597382'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5882947508854431385/posts/default/8965296289130597382'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://appellatedecisions.blogspot.com/2011/03/summary-evidence.html' title='Summary Evidence'/><author><name>Baskin Jones</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/07110644550134897193</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5882947508854431385.post-7353267981437012795</id><published>2011-01-30T16:05:00.000-08:00</published><updated>2011-02-02T10:33:17.321-08:00</updated><title type='text'>Apellate Review</title><content type='html'>This Blog will review recent caselaw in the 5th circuit as well as the Mississippi Courts. Special attention will be paid to areas where the law in Mississippi has recently changed due to appellate decisions.&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/5882947508854431385-7353267981437012795?l=appellatedecisions.blogspot.com' alt='' /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://appellatedecisions.blogspot.com/feeds/7353267981437012795/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://appellatedecisions.blogspot.com/2011/01/up-and-at-em.html#comment-form' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5882947508854431385/posts/default/7353267981437012795'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/5882947508854431385/posts/default/7353267981437012795'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://appellatedecisions.blogspot.com/2011/01/up-and-at-em.html' title='Apellate Review'/><author><name>Baskin Jones</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/07110644550134897193</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry></feed>
