Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorVergne, Adam J.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-02-18T17:55:05Z
dc.date.available2013-02-18T17:55:05Z
dc.date.issued2011en_US
dc.identifier.citation44 Creighton L. Rev. 287 (2010-2011)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10504/40707
dc.description.abstractINTRODUCTION|Nebraska courts have operated under rules similar to the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for many years. In doing so, the Nebraska courts have faced the issue of whether Nebraska Court Rule of Discovery 322 ("N.C.R.D. 32"), the Nebraska counterpart to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 323 ("F.R.C.P. 32"), created an independent hearsay exception. Unquestionably, F.R.C.P. 32 provides for the admission of a deposition into evidence under some circumstances, such as when the witness is more than 100 miles from the trial. Conversely, Nebraska Rule of Evidence 8046 ("N.R.E. 804"), the Nebraska counterpart to Federal Rule of Evidence 8047 ("F.R.E. 804"), provides for the admission of a deposition into evidence only after an actual showing of unavailability. Unlike the actual showing of unavailability required under N.R.E...en_US
dc.publisherCreighton University School of Lawen_US
dc.titleWalton v. Patil: How the Supreme Court of Nebraska Breached the Applicable Standard of Care When Interpreting the Admissibility of Deposition Testimony under Nebraska Court Rule of Discovery 32en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.rights.holderCreighton Universityen_US
dc.description.volume44en_US
dc.publisher.locationOmaha, Nebraskaen_US
dc.title.workCreighton Law Reviewen_US
dc.description.note2010-2011en_US
dc.description.pages287en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record