Search for: "Jane Doe v. Jane Doe I" Results 201 - 220 of 728
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Apr 2013, 2:28 am by Susan Brenner
It’s a matter of common sense and fairness.If hearsay weren’t excluded, John Doe could take the stand and say Jane Doe told him the defendant – Richard Roe – who’s on trial for murder confessed to the whole thing. [read post]
Engleman defended her amendment, saying, “I think it’s harmful to put a minor in the position of being the new Jane Roe. [read post]
25 Aug 2016, 8:12 am by Eric Goldman
Alexandra Jane Roberts [Eric’s intro: the Rio Summer Olympic games may be over, but the legal wranglings from the games will keep going and going–even longer than the bike road race (and perhaps with as many crashes). [read post]
4 Nov 2024, 4:00 am by Michael C. Dorf
If Jane says "she" and "her" to refer to a person who has recently chosen to go by "they" and "them" because Jane is only now getting used to gender-neutral pronouns but is making an effort to do so, Jane should be given some grace. [read post]
13 Mar 2008, 7:29 pm
I previously posted about the case of Miken v. [read post]
13 Jul 2020, 11:16 am by Elizabeth Kruska
  SCOV says that just because a flyer posted on a wall in town says “this flyer was posted by Jane Doedoes not mean that it should be authenticated as a poster posted by Jane Doe. [read post]
31 Oct 2008, 12:01 pm
As I noted there, allowing hearsay as a general matter would mean John Doe could take the stand and say he'd heard that the defendant - Jane Smith - had committed all kinds of crimes. [read post]