Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Missouri kansas texas ry co compromise evidence

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: completed settlement (not an offer or an acceptance but a completed settlement) usually becomes relevant in litigation where one of the parties is a party to the settlement and one is not. (Defendant with multiple plaintiffs.....if he settles with one plaintiff..that settlement can't be used against the defendant to show that he is liable for the event in which both the plaintiffs were injured.) Second holding: 2 fundamentally different versions of settlement offers 1. Federal rule (TX rule): the rule protects not just the fact that there was an offer or a settlement with someone else that would indicate a similar thing, or the terms of the offer BUT ALSO statements of fact made in settlement discussions 2. Pennsylvania's minority approach: only protects the facts and terms of the offer, but if a party makes a damaging admission of fact in settlement discussion, this is admissible Texas Case: Joice v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Ry. Co. Compromise evidence brought in to show bias or prejudice of a witness: Facts: Suit agains...
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