Add to ORKGNeither the Washington Legislature nor the Washington Supreme Court has addressed the issue of instructing a jury on Washington\u27s doctrine of modified joint and several liability and its effects. Historically, most states prevented courts from instructing juries on the effects of their answers to special verdicts. Washington, however, has no history of keeping a jury uninformed of the effects of its answers. This Comment concludes that Washington courts should continue the practice of informing juries of the effects of their answers and instruct juries on joint and several liability and its effects
Covers observations on State v. Beck on the joint problems of delineating the function of the grand...
A perennial problem confronting the attorney preparing for trial is whether his client has a right t...
Professor Stevens\u27 article had its genesis as a book review of the New York Pattern Jury Instruct...
In this discussion of the 1986 rejection and modification of the joint and several liability rule, a...
With the Washington Supreme Court having recently invalidated the statutory cap placed on awards of ...
One of the most burdensome, time-consuming and vexing aspects of a jury trial is the preparation of ...
This note first examines the development of the standards currently applied in Washington for determ...
This Comment examines and analyzes the two judicially created limitations on governmental tort liabi...
This Note explores the Tegman decision in the context of joint and several liability between neglige...
The practical aspects of instructing a jury that the amount of its verdict in a personal injury case...
Support is growing for increased use of six-member juries in civil cases. Presently, a jury with les...
In June 2009, the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II, reversed Kristina Grier’s second-d...
The ordinary rules of negligence, applied in actions brought by a guest against his host for injurie...
Under Washington State’s historic default rules, the civil jury consisted of twelve persons unless b...
It was in this spirit that the Board of Judicial Administration created the Washington State Jury Co...
Covers observations on State v. Beck on the joint problems of delineating the function of the grand...
A perennial problem confronting the attorney preparing for trial is whether his client has a right t...
Professor Stevens\u27 article had its genesis as a book review of the New York Pattern Jury Instruct...
In this discussion of the 1986 rejection and modification of the joint and several liability rule, a...
With the Washington Supreme Court having recently invalidated the statutory cap placed on awards of ...
One of the most burdensome, time-consuming and vexing aspects of a jury trial is the preparation of ...
This note first examines the development of the standards currently applied in Washington for determ...
This Comment examines and analyzes the two judicially created limitations on governmental tort liabi...
This Note explores the Tegman decision in the context of joint and several liability between neglige...
The practical aspects of instructing a jury that the amount of its verdict in a personal injury case...
Support is growing for increased use of six-member juries in civil cases. Presently, a jury with les...
In June 2009, the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II, reversed Kristina Grier’s second-d...
The ordinary rules of negligence, applied in actions brought by a guest against his host for injurie...
Under Washington State’s historic default rules, the civil jury consisted of twelve persons unless b...
It was in this spirit that the Board of Judicial Administration created the Washington State Jury Co...
Covers observations on State v. Beck on the joint problems of delineating the function of the grand...
A perennial problem confronting the attorney preparing for trial is whether his client has a right t...
Professor Stevens\u27 article had its genesis as a book review of the New York Pattern Jury Instruct...