Midlands Case Law

Louis-Ferdinand v. Allen (1993)

Industry standards/community customs are relevant (401) to establishing reasonableness, but not dispositive.

Louis-Ferdinand v. Allen (1993)

Industry standards/community customs are relevant (401) to establishing reasonableness, but not dispositive.

Allen v. Neptune (2013)

Standard of care \= skill/knowledge of similar communities. Standard for professionals is higher than amateurs.

Scanlon v. Burnett (2012)

Superior skill/knowledge \= higher standard of conduct. Amateurs and professionals are different communities.

Zomerfeld v. Noto (2012)

Courts can rely on inadmissible evidence when evaluating the admissibility of evidence.

Harper v. Rajan (2015)

Courts may consider custodial documents (e.g., clerk certifications, affidavits of records keepers) when determining the admissibility of other evidence. (801, 802, 803, 804, 805).

Karan v. Baboons, Inc. (2004)

In bifurcated cases, the existence of "harm" still needs to be established. But 401/403 are stringently applied.

Ginger v. Heisman (2015)

E-message from person's contact \= enough authenticating foundation; absent evidence someone else sent it.

Simpson v. Rose (1992)

Verbal acts, by their existence, impose legal responsibilities and grant legal rights. Non-hearsay.

State v. Shenanigans Beer Buckets (2004)

A liquor license is a verbal act (admissable, non-hearsay).

Dolly v Ringo (2010)

801(d)(2) - only the P may offer statements by the D and vice versa, even if the hearsay was elicited on direct.

America's Best Cookie v. IHW (2011)

Out-of-court statements by a witness in court are still "hearsay" in Midlands.

Kaplan v. Sikora (2013)

801(d)(2)(D) - (i) was a party agent, (ii) was acting within that role (iii) statement made while still an agent.

Tarot Readers v. Merrell Dow (1994)

702(c) factors for judges: (i) theory/technique tested or testable (ii) peer-reviewed/published (iii) error rate (iv) widespread acceptance. These factors are not dispositive, there is no definitive checklist.

Richards v. Mississippi BBQ (1997)

Experts ≠ conduits for hearsay. Hearsay that is the foundation of expert conclusions is admissible.

Kane Software v. Mars (1998)

No trial by ambush. Expert reports must contain all qualifications, opinions/conclusions, considered facts/data, and reasoning (basis) for opinions that the expert will testify to on direct or redirect.

Aggarwal v. Somani (2020)

Experts need not disclose every basic scientific fact/known reality that supports a conclusion they disclosed in
their report. Experts need not detail every underlying fact from a document they disclosed reviewing.

Diamond Design v. Fountain (2021)

Witness conclusions/opinions that are exclusively legal (not factual) in nature fail under 702(a), inadmissible.

Grant v. Janmohamed (2021)

Experts may rely on and recite the NTSB's findings of fact, but not the NTSB's opinions.

Pippin v. Big Cat Air, LLC (2022)

NTSB "facts" \= objectively ascertainable information. NTSB "opinions" require analysis/expertise to ascertain.

Moore v. Campbell (2014)

If a witness cannot/will not respond to otherwise proper questions on cross-examination, the trial court must strike the witness's testimony in its entirety (including testimony on direct examination).

Davis v. HappyLand Toy Co. (2011)

Surviving spouses of decedents are "parties" under 801(d)(2)(A), but not for the purpose of establishing "harm" or "injury." The surviving spouse's emotional distress or financial loss is irrelevant and often prejudicial.