Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Law digest – 10/29/12


Evidence, Cumulative testimony: Improperly admitted hearsay statement from a detective was cumulative, and did not entitle defendant to a new trial, as two other witnesses testified to similar admissions by the defendant. Yates v. State, No. 8, Sept. Term 2012. RecordFax No. 12-1023-20, 21 pages.

Evidence, Prior consistent statement: Although a witness’ prior consistent statements may be admissible as substantive evidence, provided certain prerequisites are satisfied, if the prior consistent statements were made at a time prior to the existence of any fact which would motivate bias, interest or corruption on the part of the witness, then the prior consistent statements are admissible to rebut the alleged bias or interest, but, conversely, statements made when the declarant had an alleged motive to falsify are not relevant to rebut a charge of fabrication. Thomas v. State, No. 127, Sept. Term 2011. RecordFax No. 12-1022-20, 29 pages.

Real Property, Self-help: Where purchasers of foreclosed property seized possession of home while its occupant was away, and disposed of occupant’s personal belongings, purchasers acted reasonably in exercising their right to peaceable self-help because occupant knew that the home had been sold at foreclosure and had been notified in advance that purchasers would take possession, and because, by waiting until occupant was away, purchasers reasonably sought to avoid a potentially violent confrontation. Nickens v. Mount Vernon Realty Group, LLC, et al., No. 7, Sept. Term 2012. RecordFax No. 12-1019-20, 30 pages.


Civil Procedure, Nunc pro tunc: District court erred by issuing amended order nunc pro tunc (i.e., effective as of) earlier order in order to extend plaintiff’s time to file pleadings, because nunc pro tunc entries may only be employed to correct mistakes or omissions in the record so that the record properly reflects the events that actually took place. Glynne v. Wilmed Healthcare, et al., No. 11-1859. RecordFax No. 12-1018-60, 8 pages.

Civil Procedure, Statute of limitations: Where plaintiffs challenged agency ruling relating to gun sales, district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action as time barred, because statute of limitations accrued at the time of the agency ruling, not, as plaintiffs contended, at the time plaintiffs became licensed gun dealers. Hire Order Ltd v. Marianos, No. 11-1802. RecordFax No. 12-1018-61, 6 pages.

1 of 1 article

0 articles remaining

Grow your business intelligence with The Daily Record. Register now for more article access.