Stacy sued Carla in Texarkana state court for wrongful termination of employment. During Stacy’s case-in-chief, Stacy argues that Carla fired her because Stacy discovered Carla’s illegal business practices. The Texarkana employment protection statute requires that Stacy show she was employed by Carla, that her termination was without cause, and that she filed a grievance with her company’s Board of Directors in order to receive monetary damages and reinstatement. Stacy presents evidence of employment and termination without cause, but fails to show that she filed a grievance. At the conclusion of Stacy’s case, Carla filed a motion to dismiss. What is the court’s likely action?

The court is likely to grant Carla’s motion to dismiss because Stacy failed to make a prima facie case.
The court is likely to deny Carla’s motion to dismiss because Stacy established a prima facie case.
The court is likely to deny Carla’s motion to dismiss because Stacy may present evidence during her closing argument.
The court is likely to deny Carla’s motion to dismiss because Stacy may present evidence after the defense’s case-in-chief.

Ned is suing Kristen for negligence in Texarkana state court. Ned alleges that Kristen failed to adequately shovel the snow on the sidewalk in front of her coffee shop. In addition, Ned states that Kristen left dangerous black ice on the uncovered sidewalk area and that he slipped and fell, breaking his wrist. On direct examination, Ned testifies that he carefully attempted to maneuver around the snow and ice, but that there was no way to pass and as a result, he fell. Ned also testifies that the fall caused the broken wrist. On cross-examination, Kristen’s attorney inquired into a hockey game that Ned had played in a week before in which he had injured the same wrist that allegedly broke when he fell. In response to the question, Ned denied sustaining an injury during a hockey game. Kristen’s attorney provided an x-ray of the wrist and a doctor’s written deposition supporting that Ned’s wrist break was sustained in the game. Ned finally confessed that the injury was not caused by his fall in front of Kristen’s coffee shop. Is the cross-examination permissible?

I. Yes, because the x-ray and the doctor’s deposition are related to the cause of Ned’s injury.
II. Yes, because the cross-examination attempts to attack the plaintiff’s case by offering an alternative cause of the injury.
III. No, because the cross-examination is outside the scope of the direct examination.
IV. No, because the cross-examination does not go to his credibility.

I only.
II and IV.
I and II only.
IV only.

Stan sued Trent in the state of Texarkana for damages based on Texarkana slander laws. Stan alleges that Trent, who was interviewed on national television, stated on air that Stan “viewed child pornography on the internet on a regular basis”. Stan, outraged that Trent’s comment was a complete lie and would negatively hurt his career and image, sued Trent. During the plaintiff’s case-in-chief, Stan established that the statement was false and that it had been published to millions of viewers across the country. As the last witness, Stan took the witness stand to testify. He attested to the fact that his career had been significantly and negatively impacted by the comment, and socially he has been ostracized in Texarkana City. On cross-examination, Trent’s attorney attempted to raise questions regarding his custody battle for his two kids with his estranged wife, Estelle. Is this a proper topic for cross-examination? Note that Texarkana follows the cross-examination rules commonly found in a majority of jurisdictions.

Yes, because there are no restrictions during cross-examination.
No, because the cross-examination falls outside of the scope of the direct examination and does not attack the witness’s credibility.
Yes, because there is a direct link between the slander charge and the custody issue.
No, because the custody issue raises an issue of Stan’s credibility.

After a defendant conducts cross-examination of plaintiff’s witness, it is permissible for the plaintiff’s attorney to do which of the following?

May re-examine the witness based on any issues.
Must re-examine the witness based on any arguments made during opening statements or that may be raised during closing statements.
Must re-examine the witness based on physical evidence presented, such as depositions, written documents, and other items.
May re-examine the witness based on the issues raised during cross-examination.

Elena was representing her client in a dispute over an authentic handwritten draft of the Gettysburg address. The draft contained the date July of 1862 (the actual Gettysburg address was delivered in November 19, 1863), and had notations in the handwriting of President Abraham Lincoln. As part of her case, Elena sought to introduce the date the address was delivered. What is the best way for Elena to introduce the date into court?

She should seek to admit the original copy of the address as evidence.
She should seek an historian who specializes in the history of the Gettysburg address to introduce his research into the Gettysburg address and testify to the date it was delivered.
She should ask the court to take judicial notice of the date the address was delivered.
She should admit a publicized historical work that attests to the date the address was delivered.

Stephanie was suing Ricardo in Texarkana state court for damages suffered when Ricardo crashed his van into Stephanie’s car on July 5, 2003. Neither party disputes that the accident occurred on that date. What is the most efficient way for both parties to introduce the date of the accident?

Stephanie and Ricardo may stipulate to the date of the accident.
Stephanie and Ricardo may take judicial notice of the date of the accident.
Stephanie and Ricardo may enter a record of the event, such as a police report.
Stephanie and Ricardo may ask the jury to take notice of the date of the accident.

Edward sued Thomas in Texarkana state court for negligence. Thomas, the owner of a grocery store in Texarkana City, failed to maintain clean floors. On February 28, 2003, Edward was walking through the produce section when he slipped and fell on a banana peel that had been negligently left on the floor. During plaintiff’s case-in-chief, Edward’s attorney demonstrated that Thomas had a duty to maintain a safe and clean environment, that the banana peel caused the physical injury, and that he sustained damages. However, Edward’s attorney failed to establish that there was a breach of duty, which is required under Texarkana’s negligence statute. At the conclusion of Edward’s case-in-chief, Thomas’s attorney filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law. At this time, Edward’s attorney provided the court with evidence of the breach. How should the court decide on the issue of Thomas’s motion?

The court should grant the motion for judgment as a matter of law because Edward’s attorney failed to provide sufficient factual evidence prior to the filing of the motion for judgment as a matter of law.
The court should deny the motion for judgment as a matter of law because Edward’s attorney provided sufficient evidence of all elements of the cause of action.
The court should grant the motion for judgment as a mater of law because Edward’s attorney timely filed the motion with the court.
The court should grant the motion for judgment as a matter of law because the judge has the discretion to grant or deny the motion as he sees fit, no matter what factual evidence is presented to the court.

Any statement made out of court.
Any statement made by one other than a party to the action.
Any statement made by one not personally familiar with the facts giving rise to the case.
An out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

While walking on the pathway into Stuart’s house, Haley slips and falls on some ice that has accumulated on the slate, injuring her knee. Her friend Sarah accompanied Haley at the time. A few days later, Sarah tells her friend Norman about the incident and says, “It looked like Stuart had never salted his pathway!” Haley brings an action against Stuart to recover damages for her injuries. In support of her case, Haley’s attorney calls Norman as a witness and asks: “What did Sarah tell you about the condition of Stuart’s pathway?” Stuart objects to the question on the ground that it calls for inadmissible hearsay. Should the court sustain or overrule the objection?

Sustain, because the question calls for inadmissible hearsay.
Overrule, because the question does not call for hearsay.
Overrule, because the attorney has the right to ask any question to prove its client’s case.
Sustain, because the attorney may only ask the plaintiff about the condition of Stuart’s pathway.