Civil Litigation,
California Courts of Appeal,
Appellate Practice
May 28, 2020
Evidence: An eternal struggle?
The hearsay rule traces back 500 years, and its ascension to a uniform principle occurred in the 1800s. How is it that 120 or so years later, lawyers and judges are still struggling to interpret and apply the rule? Or is that even the right question?
Gary A. Watt
Partner
Hanson Bridgett LLP
State Bar Approved, Certified Appellate Specialist
Email: gwatt@hansonbridgett.com
Gary chairs Hanson Bridgett's Appellate Practice. He is a State Bar-approved, certified appellate specialist. In addition to writs and appeals, his practice includes anti-SLAPP and post-trial motions as well as trial and appellate consulting. His blog posts can be read at www.appellateinsight.com.
Last week, a unanimous California Supreme Court reversed a Court of Appeal's interpretation of the hearsay rule. Hart v. Keenan Properties, Inc., 2020 DJDAR 4754. According to Wigmore, the hearsay rule traces back 500 years, and its ascension to a uniform principle occurred in the 1800s. How is it that 120 or so years later, lawyers and judges are still strug...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In
Enewsletter Sign-up
Related Content
Evidence
Hart v. Keenan Properties, Inc.
Witness observations of names and logos were not hearsay because they were relevant to prove disputed link between defendant and pipes and were not offered for truth of their content.
