Plaintiff’s Case-in-Chief; Motions Made After Plaintiff’s Case-in-Chief Self-Quiz
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?
|
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. |
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.
|
After a defendant
conducts cross-examination of plaintiff’s witness, it is permissible
for the plaintiff’s attorney to do which of the following?
|
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?
|
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?
|
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?
|
|
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?
|
© 2003 - 2024 National Paralegal College