Add to ORKGThis Article examines from a comparative perspective the rules of evidence relating to relevance and its limits. The Article compares the approaches of the California Evidence Code ( Code ) and the Federal Rules of Evidence ( Rules ) to challenges to the introduction of evidence on the grounds of irrelevance or on the basis of limits placed on the introduction of relevant evidence
This article explores some of the differences between the common law and civilian legal systems with...
Logically, any code of evidence should start with general rules stating what evidence is admissible ...
This article discusses the underlying reasons for establishing rules of evidence, defines two unavoi...
THIS ARTICLE COMPARES the general provisions of the California Evidence Code and the Federal Rules o...
THIS ARTICLE COMPARES the approaches of the California Evidence Code and the Federal Rules of Eviden...
This article examines the requirements to introduce writings into evidence: authentication, the best...
THE CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE Code ( Code ) and the Federal Rules of Evidence ( Rules ) have much in commo...
Evidence admissible in federal courts frequently is excluded under the California exclusionary rule,...
Rule 407 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the “Subsequent Remedial Measures” Rule, is troubling. Th...
It is the thesis of this article that under the federal rules there are basically only two limitatio...
During the past decade, particularly during the years immediately following the California Supreme C...
On January 1, 1967, the California Evidence Code began to govern trials held in California courts. B...
The scope of the general definition of relevant evidence in the Federal Rules of Evidence is ambig...
This article has three main objectives. The first is to promote an overt, objectively rigorous and p...
In this Article, Professor Neuman gives serious attention to how the some evidence requirement has...
This article explores some of the differences between the common law and civilian legal systems with...
Logically, any code of evidence should start with general rules stating what evidence is admissible ...
This article discusses the underlying reasons for establishing rules of evidence, defines two unavoi...
THIS ARTICLE COMPARES the general provisions of the California Evidence Code and the Federal Rules o...
THIS ARTICLE COMPARES the approaches of the California Evidence Code and the Federal Rules of Eviden...
This article examines the requirements to introduce writings into evidence: authentication, the best...
THE CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE Code ( Code ) and the Federal Rules of Evidence ( Rules ) have much in commo...
Evidence admissible in federal courts frequently is excluded under the California exclusionary rule,...
Rule 407 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the “Subsequent Remedial Measures” Rule, is troubling. Th...
It is the thesis of this article that under the federal rules there are basically only two limitatio...
During the past decade, particularly during the years immediately following the California Supreme C...
On January 1, 1967, the California Evidence Code began to govern trials held in California courts. B...
The scope of the general definition of relevant evidence in the Federal Rules of Evidence is ambig...
This article has three main objectives. The first is to promote an overt, objectively rigorous and p...
In this Article, Professor Neuman gives serious attention to how the some evidence requirement has...
This article explores some of the differences between the common law and civilian legal systems with...
Logically, any code of evidence should start with general rules stating what evidence is admissible ...
This article discusses the underlying reasons for establishing rules of evidence, defines two unavoi...