Evidence

News & Analysis as of

B&B Hardware v Hargis Industries - Supreme Court: TTAB rulings refusing registration on likelihood of confusion grounds may be...

The United States Supreme Court has decided an important question of trademark law that has divided the courts of appeals. The Court held in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., No. 13-352, 575 U.S. ____, 2015...more

Court Decides Sarbanes-Oxley Is Intended for a Different Kettle of Fish The Fish Tale and the U.S. Supreme Court: Part II

By a surprisingly narrow margin, the U.S. Supreme Court recently spared future fishermen from facing up to 20 years in prison for destroying their catch. The case, Yates v. United States of America, involved the curious tale...more

Expert Is Not Permitted to Testify to Alternate Hypothetical Negotiation Dates Where No Hypothetical Negotiation Was Conducted for...

After the parties submitted expert reports in this patent infringement action, Ford objected to Eagle Harbor's damage expert's expected testimony and demonstratives. Ford objected to Eagle Harbor's evidence because it...more

Westerhoff and McCallum: More from the OCA on Expert Evidence

The Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision last week in Westerhof v. Gee Estate and McCallum v. Baker (2015 ONCA 206), which are the companion cases to Moore v. Getahun.  All three appeals were heard together....more

Long Tail Personal Injury Claims – Have the Gates Opened in Western Australia?

In September 2014, we reported on the argument before the Supreme Court of Western Australia Court of Appeal in an appeal against the decision of Dixon v Clarke [2013] WASC 471.  The Court of Appeal delivered its reasons for...more

Seoul Depositions

The capital of South Korea, Seoul, is the second largest metropolitan area in the world, and home to over half of South Korea’s population. Seoul is ranked as the world’s most wired city (and home to the world’s fastest...more

Avoiding Preservation Pitfalls When Using Electronic Evidence

Practitioners should not be afraid to use the electronic format of evidence in their cases.  Electronic evidence is often more convenient and effective than its tangible counterpart.  At the same time, however, counsel ...more

A Colorful Supreme Court Case Revives the Rule of Lenity

Last month, the Supreme Court’s decision in Yates v. United States provided much fodder for pun-filled headlines about fishing. The case involved the government’s attempt to stretch the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which originally...more

Crash, Bang, Smash! Tips for Successfully Navigating Evidentiary Roads In Motor Vehicle Collisions

So your client has been involved in motor vehicle collision. Now what? Whether representing a plaintiff or a defendant in a crash, preserving all potentially relevant evidence is an obvious first concern. What may not be so...more

New Guidance in Colorado on Rules of Evidence for Social Media

When litigating cases in court, lawyers must follow formal rules of evidence. In 1965, Chief Justice Earl Warren of the United States Supreme Court started developing what would eventually become formal Rules of Evidence. The...more

Demonstrative Evidence: When You Want to Show and Tell

An episode of This American Life described the failed effort to get a Tic-tac-toe-playing chicken into evidence in the death penalty case of a mentally ill man with a very low IQ. Defense counsel was trying to rebut a...more

Proving Your Business Income Loss: Defeating Insurance Company Challenges to Policyholder Evidence

Courts commonly observe that the purpose of Business Interruption or Business Income insurance is to put the policyholder in the same position it would have been in had there been no interruption. The Business Interruption...more

Can an Indiana Chamber of Commerce’s Building Qualify for a Property Tax Exemption? Not Without Evidence of Predominate Use for an...

In Greater Portage Chamber of Commerce v. Porter County Assessor, Pet. No. 64-016-10-2-8-00001 (January 2, 2015), the Indiana Board of Tax Review confirmed the denial of a property tax exemption where the taxpayer failed to...more

Standard of Review for Claim Construction on Appeal

On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court provided guidance on the standard of review for claim construction on appeal in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 12-854. The Court held “[w]hen reviewing a district...more

Expert Witness Testimony Normally Improper for Preliminary Response - B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. Mag Aerospace Industries, LLC

Clarifying what is impermissible “new” evidence for a Patent Owner Preliminary Response in an inter partes review (IPR), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) ordered that the patent owner’s exhibit, in the form...more

Supreme Court Limits Scope of SOX Anti-Shredding Provision

The US Supreme Court recently reversed the conviction of a commercial fisherman, John L. Yates, accused of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1519, also known as the anti-shredding provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), holding that...more

SCOTUS Narrows SOX Obstruction Statute

In its recent ruling in Yates v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a conviction under Sarbanes-Oxley’s “anti-shredding” statute, holding that it covers documents, records and only “tangible objects” similar to...more

Yates v. United States: Supreme Court Reins in Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s “Anti-Shredding” Provision

Action Item: The Supreme Court’s decision in Yates v. United States will significantly impact how in-house counsel, outside counsel, and compliance officers alike should advise their clients with respect to evidence...more

SOX, the Destruction of Evidence And Dr. Seuss: Is a Fish A Tangible Object?

Section 1519 was passed as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the wake of Enron’s massive accounting fraud. The section was designed to fill a gap in the law by preventing corporate document-shredding to conceal evidence of...more

Get and Keep Your Jury’s Attention with Dynamic Evidence Presentation

When you’re in trial, your goal is to provide the jury with the information they need to make an informed decision and also to prove to them that your point of view is correct. What you don’t want is for the jury’s attention...more

SCOTUS Rules No Felony for Throwing the Little Ones Overboard

The case, Yates v. United States, arose from a offshore inspection of a commercial fishing vessel in the Gulf of Mexico. During the inspection, a federal agent found that the ship’s catch contained undersized red grouper, in...more

Texas Claims Are Getting Nasti: The Insured’s Burdens

Texas courts have long taken the position that “[w]hen covered and excluded perils combine to cause an injury, the insured must present some evidence affording the jury a reasonable basis on which to allocate damages.”...more

Merely Discarding Information Won’t Violate Florida’s Tampering Statute

On December 3, 2014, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal overturned a police detective’s conviction for deleting a video from his work cellular telephone. The video recorded a witness making statements about a case, but...more

Pure Speculation is Not Enough for Sanctions (Florida)

Advantor Systems Corp. v. DRS Technical Services, Inc., 2015 WL 403308 (M.D. Fl. Jan. 28, 2015). In this non-disclosure case, the plaintiff sought sanctions after the defendant reformatted an employee laptop, allegedly...more

High Court Divided: Is A Fish A Tangible Object?

Gulf fisherman John Yates was cited by a federally-deputized Florida Fish & Wildlife officer for having caught a few red grouper that were about an inch under the 20” minimum limit at the time (they’d have been legal under...more

466 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 19