July 2022 Flashcards
Expert qualification under FRE
This motion raises the issue of expert qualification under the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”). Ordinarily, a witness must have personal knowledge of relevant evidence in order to testify. However, a person with specialized training, knowledge, or experience can be qualified to testify as an expert witness if that testimony would be helpful to the trier of fact. An expert may base their testimony on facts known to the expert before trial or made known to the expert at trial. In federal court, the Daubert test is used to determine whether a witness is competent to testify as an expert.
FRE 702
Rule 702 governs the admissibility of expert opinions and conclusions as evidence. Rule 702 requires that the opinions be based on sufficient facts and data, be the product of reliable principles and methods, and result from the expert reliably applying those principles and methods to the facts and data are considered.
Character Evidence
In a criminal trial, character evidence offered by the prosecution is inadmissible unless the defendant opens the door or a non-character evidence purpose exists. Character evidence is defined as evidence of a person’s character or character trait offered to suggest that a person acted in conformity with their character and committed the acts alleged. This use is also known as “propensity evidence.” However, evidence of a person’s character or character trait can be offered to prove motive, intent, lack of mistake, identity, or control.
Relevant Evidence
Relevant evidence is evidence that makes any fact of consequence to determining the action more or less likely than it would be without that fact. FRE 402. Evidence of motive and opportunity in a criminal trial is almost always considered relevant. Evidence can be excluded if, although it is relevant, its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of prejudice, confusion of the issues, or suggesting a verdict on an improper basis. FRE 403.
Parol Evidence Rule
Under the parol evidence rule, when parties enter into a written contract, extrinsic evidence regarding any oral agreements from before the contract was signed will not be considered if it directly contradicts the terms of the contract. When a contract is fully integrated, no extrinsic evidence pre-contract evidence will be considered, unless it helps to clarify an ambiguous term. When a contract does not contain a merger clause or does not otherwise specify that it is intended to be the complete and final agreement, it is partially integrated. When a contract is merely partially integrated, extrinsic pre-contract evidence may be offered to prove consistent or supplementary terms, so long as those terms do not contradict the express terms of the contract.
Covenant not to compete
Generally, if one party to a contract performs his duties under the contract, the other party must perform, or they will be in breach. A covenant not to compete is enforceable if it is for a reasonable period of time and reasonably bounded geographically. However, a covenant not to compete will be deemed unconscionable, and thus unenforceable, if it is substantially more restrictive than is necessary.
Actual and Apparent Authority
Generally, when an agent acts on behalf of the principal, the principal will not be bound unless the agent acted either with actual authority or apparent authority. An agent has actual authority if the agent reasonably believes that she has authority to act based upon the principal’s conduct, and may be either express (i.e., by contract or other agreement) or implied (e.g., based on past conduct or dealings between them, or by necessity). An agent has apparent authority when a third party with whom the agent deals reasonably believes, based on the principal’s conduct, that the agent has authority to act.
Acting without authority
Even when an agent acts without authority, the principal may still be bound if the principal later ratifies the agent’s act. A principal may ratify the agent’s acts expressly (i.e., by agreeing to be bound by the agent’s unauthorized acts), or impliedly (e.g., by accepting benefits that flow from agent’s unauthorized acts).
Conflict of Interest
When a director has a conflict of interest in some transaction (i.e., she stands to personally gain from it), it may be approved one of three ways: (1) majority vote of disinterested directors, after full and complete disclosure of material facts; (2) majority vote of disinterested shareholders, after full and complete disclosure of material facts; or (3) by proving that the transaction was manifestly fair at the time.
Creating of Trust
In order to create a trust, a settlor must, with intent to create a trust, convey property to a trustee and the trustee must name a specified beneficiary. For the trust to be valid, the trustee must have directions in how to manage the trust. When a trust is created, title to the trust property is divided, with the legal and equitable title divided between the trustee and the beneficiary. A trust must also have a proper purpose, which is broad, and includes most legal purposes. Under the common law Rule Against Perpetuities, a gift is only valid if it will be vested within 21 years of a life in being at the creation of a gift.
Revocation of Trust
Under the Uniform Trust Code (UTC) a revocable trust may be revoked through an intentional act of revocation by the settlor, such acts of revocation include written over the text of the document, tearing, burning, or otherwise destroying the document. An irrevocable trust may not be similarly revoked, however, the UTC presumes that trusts are revocable based on favoring alienability and control of property.
Testamentary Trust
The general rules for trust creation are stated above. Under the UTC, trusts may be properly made for the benefit of a charity and are not subject to the Rule Against Perpetuities and can have a broader class of beneficiaries. However, a trust will only qualify as a charitable trust if the beneficiary has a proper charitable purpose. Such charitable purposes include education, environmental causes, relief of poverty, and religious organizations. Political purposes are not valid charitable purposes under the UTC.
Necessary Party
Under FRCP 19(a) a party is necessary (1) if the court cannot award adequate relief without the party, (2) if the party’s interests are not currently adequately represented, or (3) a resolution will subject that party to multiple obligations. A court must join such a party if it is feasible to do so. It is feasible to join the party if the court has jurisdiction over them.
SMJ
Subject Matter Jurisdiction (“SMJ”) refers to the federal court’s power over the case. Federal courts are limited in what kinds of disputes they may hear. To exert SMJ over a case, there must be either (1) federal question jurisdiction, (2) diversity jurisdiction, or (3) supplemental jurisdiction. Federal question jurisdiction arises when the claim asserts federal rights (not just federal defenses). Diversity jurisdiction exists if there is (1) complete diversity among the parties and (2) the case exceeds $75,000.
Indispensable party
If a court determines that a necessary party that cannot be joined is indispensable, the court must dismiss the action. In determining whether a party is indispensable, the court will consider: (1) an alternative forum is available; (2) the extent of harm likely; and (3) whether the court can shape relief to avoid the harm.
