Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hernandez v. State

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided August 26, 2002No. CV-01-0437-PRPublished

1Dissent

JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Judge,

dissenting.*

¶ 19 “ ‘[Cjourts have not formulated a consistent, reliable body of doctrine to determine the extent to which [R]ule 408 bars evidence of ... statements made during [compromise] negotiations’ when offered [to impeach a party].” Fred S. Hjelmeset, Impeachment of Party by Prior Inconsistent *201Statement in Compromise Negotiations: Admissibility Under Federal Rule of Evidence 408, 43 Clev. St. L.Rev. 75, 108 (1995) (brackets added) (footnote omitted) (quoting Wayne D. Brazil, Protecting the Confidentiality of Settlement Negotiations, 39 Hastings L.J. 955, 974…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Breuer Electric Manufacturing Co. v. Toronado Systems of America, Inc., and Michael Marshak A/K/A Michael MajchrzakCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1982
  2. Affiliated Manufacturers, Inc. v. Aluminum Company of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
  3. Barbara A. Brocklesby v. United States of America, and Jeppesen and CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
  4. Crum v. Superior CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1996
  5. Davidson v. Beco Corp.Idaho Supreme Court · 1987

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API