Sacramento Car Accident Lawyer Blog

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

THIS COURT MAY EXCLUDE PREJUDICIAL OR IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE IN ADVANCE OF TRIAL BY WAY OF A MOTION IN LIMINE

The court has the inherent power to grant a motion in limine to exclude "any kind of evidence" which could be objected to at trial, either as irrelevant or subject to discretionary exclusion as unduly prejudicial. Clemens v. American Warranty Corp. (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 444, 451; Peat. Marwick. Mitchell & Co. v Superior Court (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 272, 288, Evidence Code §350 states that (n)o evidence is admissible except relevant evidence. Relevant evidence is defined by Evidence Code §210 as "having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action."

Evidence Code §352 allows the court to exclude evidence where there is a substantial danger that the probative value will be outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice. See People v. Cardenas (1982) 31 Cal.3d 897, 904. Evidence Code §402 allows the court to hear and determine the question of the admissibility of evidence outside the presence of hearing of the jury. See Mize v. Atchinson, Topeka v. Santa Fe Ry. Co., (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 436,448.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Sacramento School Bus Driver Causes Car Accident, Part 2 of 2" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff Robyn Anderson’s Motion in Limine #4 to Exclude Argument or Reference to the Defense Medical Expert as Independent or to Use the Term Independent Medical Examination

Plaintiff respectfully moves the Court for Orders in Limine prohibiting attorneys for all parties from referring to the defense medical expert as independent or to use the term independent medical examination.

This motion is made on the ground that the described order is necessary to ensure that the plaintiff will be accorded a fair trial, and that the trial record in this case will not be tainted, and that the comment or reference to the defense hired expert witnesses as independent creates a substantial danger of prejudice and confusion, and would mislead the jury.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

SUMMARY

On October 17, 2008, while driving a 2002 Universal school bus, defendant Ellen White entered the intersection of Pierson Boulevard and Tulip Drive in Sacramento, in front of plaintiff, Robyn Anderson, who was traveling northbound on Tulip Drive in her 2003 Ford Taurus.

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Suffers Catastrophic Injuries In Car Accident, Part 1 of 2" »