Case Law (Shahid v. Hopson 24-25)

Question 1

Jones v. Narendra (1935)

Answer 1

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

Question 2

Brock v. Blom (1965)

Answer 2

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

Question 3

Maloney v. Soucar (1974)

Answer 3

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

Question 4

Caltry v. Bridgeman (1985)

Answer 4

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

Question 5

Salter v. Kidwai (1992)

Answer 5

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

Question 6

Bearinger v. Rajan (2009)

Answer 6

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

Question 7

Martinez v. Martinez (2015)

Answer 7

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

Question 8

Jeff v. Wario’s Toolkit (1974)

Answer 8

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

Question 9

Haug v. Sanders (2002)

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Zomerfeld v. Noto (2012)

Answer 10

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

Question 11

Mehta v. Wesley (2015)

Answer 11

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

Question 12

Thomas v. Davis (2001)

Answer 12

Pleadings frame trial issues; parties can’t alter their claims to prevent evidence presentation.

Question 13

Shakur v. Wallace (1994)

Answer 13

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

Question 13

Verbaarschott v. Lee (2005)

Answer 13

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

Question 14

Graham v. Duckworth (2024)

Answer 14

Witnesses may be questioned about inconsistencies but cannot opine on other witnesses’ truthfulness.

Question 15

Filteau v. Wanek (1992)

Answer 15

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

Question 16

Ginger v. Heisman (2015)

Answer 16

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

Question 17

State v. Sinclair (2016)

Answer 17

Jurors may compare handwriting samples with or without expert aid.

Question 18

Simpson v. Rose (1992)

Answer 18

Verbal acts are admissible as non-hearsay if they hold independent legal significance.

Question 19

Farrant v. Westaway (1994)

Answer 19

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

Question 20

Knox v. Revoir (1995)

Answer 20

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

Question 21

Zedell v. Hussain (1998)

Answer 21

MRE 803(4) doesn’t apply to statements made to litigation-retained experts.

Question 22

Dolly v. Ringo (2010)

Answer 22

MRE 801(d)(2) only applies to statements by the opposing party.

Question 23

Seferian v. Morales (2010)

Answer 23

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

Question 24

America’s Best Cookie v. International House of Waffles (2011)

Answer 24

Hearsay includes statements by witnesses who testify in the trial.

Question 25

Kaplan v. Sikora (2013)

Answer 25

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

Question 26

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

Answer 26

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

Question 27

McKanna v. Malburg (2019)

Answer 27

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

Question 28

Rogers v. Mars (2020)

Answer 28

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

Question 29

Petrillo v. Martini and Peony Estates (2021)

Answer 29

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

Question 30

State v. B.F. De la Porta (2024)

Answer 30

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

Question 31

Krent v. Lions, Inc. (2009)

Answer 31

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

Question 32

Estate of Hamilton v. Walton (2009)

Answer 32

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