Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: of the hazards of asbestos containing products during years when appellants were exposed. o Smith died before the trial of the case (unavailable under 804(a)) Issue: Defendants argue that the defendants in the previous asbestos case were not proper "predecessors in interest" Can Smith's testimony be admitted against Johns-Manville because the company had a similar "motive and interest" when it had the opportunity to examine him in the previous case? Holding: The former testimony was admissible. Johns-Manville had the opportunity and the similar motive to confront Smith's testimony in the previous case. His deposition testimony was therefore admissible against Johns-Manville in the current case. o "If it appears that in the former suit a party having a like motive to cross-examine about the same matters as the present party would have, was accorded an adequate opportunity for such examination, the testimony may be received against the present party." Notes: Common law was changed by the rules: "Predecessor in interest&quo...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course N 483 taught by Professor Wellborn during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas at Austin.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online