Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Routine practice some jurisdictions at common law

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: ly ignores the distinction between habit and routine practice Cites routine practice cases in habit cases and vice versa! CROSS CITED as if there were no difference; Wellborn thinks this is unsound and sloppy Two phrases that are an example of what we are going to see a lot in the rules "FOSSILS" o Why would the rules say regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses and whether corroborated or not? Negate a doctrine that it existed in the common law Fossil of some common law doctrine that they want to deal with...rejecting the common law here. (Habit/routine practice used to need corroboration in the common law) Common law TX and some other jurisdictions Habit = second rate, would only resort to habit if we have no direct eyewitnesses doctrine now gone See Texas Rule! Routine practice Some jurisdictions at common law, could only bring in routine practice if it was corroborated. Main question: Is it really habit? Cases like Weil v. Seitzer sees this as a bifurcation not a sliding scale!!! Dich...
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.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online