just failed the bar with a 135 MBE
| cordovan thirsty pistol center | 10/27/15 | | doobsian umber casino | 10/27/15 | | cordovan thirsty pistol center | 10/27/15 | | doobsian umber casino | 10/27/15 | | Purple sandwich | 10/27/15 | | Coral haunted graveyard faggotry | 10/27/15 | | boyish fighting hell pervert | 10/27/15 | | bearded dull principal's office cuckoldry | 10/27/15 | | cordovan thirsty pistol center | 10/27/15 | | bearded dull principal's office cuckoldry | 10/27/15 | | cordovan thirsty pistol center | 10/27/15 | | Hairraiser Tank Immigrant | 10/27/15 | | Adventurous laser beams | 10/27/15 | | Hairraiser Tank Immigrant | 10/27/15 | | Histrionic pale hospital | 10/27/15 | | fuchsia parlor | 10/27/15 | | Angry gas station roast beef | 10/27/15 | | titillating main people sweet tailpipe | 10/27/15 | | fuchsia parlor | 10/27/15 | | Histrionic pale hospital | 10/27/15 | | Hairraiser Tank Immigrant | 10/27/15 | | Khaki supple cuck | 10/27/15 | | Histrionic pale hospital | 02/19/18 |
Poast new message in this thread
|
Date: October 27th, 2015 4:06 PM Author: Adventurous laser beams
Pitt sued Dill for damages for back injuries received in a car wreck. Dill disputed the damages and sought
to prove that Pitt’s disability, if any, resulted from a childhood horseback riding accident. Pitt admitted the
childhood accident, but contended it had no lasting effect.
Pitt calls Dr. Webb, an orthopedist who had never examined Pitt, and poses to Webb a hypothetical
question as to the cause of the disability that omits any reference to the horseback riding accident. The
question was not provided to opposing counsel before trial.
The best ground for objecting to this question would be that
(A) Webb lacked firsthand knowledge concerning Pitt’s condition.
(B) the hypothetical question omitted a clearly significant fact.
(C) hypothetical questions are no longer permitted.
(D) sufficient notice of the hypothetical question was not given to opposing counsel before trial
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3028184&forum_id=2#29053146) |
|
Date: October 27th, 2015 4:59 PM Author: fuchsia parlor
The answer is B. This would be the best ground for objecting as the hypothetical question omits reference to the main issue in dispute. F.R.E. §702 allows testimony by experts and states if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify in the form of an opinion. In order to admit the evidence the testimony must be based upon sufficient facts or data. Hypothetical questions are permitted. Here, Dr. Webb’s testimony is not helpful to the trier of fact. Interestingly enough, it is misleading because it is not based on sufficient facts as it omits any reference to the horseback riding accident, the main issue in dispute. Webb’s testimony completely skews the facts in the case and presents no help to the trier of fact. His analysis of the hypothetical question is pointless. Therefore, this is the best ground for objection to the question.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3028184&forum_id=2#29053565) |
|
|