The opinion of the Circuit court of the United States, in and for the Eastern district of Pennsylvania, on the will of Sarah Zane... April term, 1833...

"Magill and others vs. Brown. Opinion of the court delivered by Mr. Justice Baldwin." - p. 7.

Trial of the case of the Commonwealth versus David Lee Child, for publishing in the Massachusetts Journal a libel on the Honorable John Keyes : before the Supreme Judicial Court, holden at Cambridge, in the County of Middlesex /

"October term, 1828."

Libel trial. Report of the trial, Timothy Upham vs. Hill & Barton, for an alleged libel, at the Court of common pleas, Rockingham county, October term, 1830. Compiled from notes taken at the trial, and the original papers in the case. To which is added an appendix, containing the evidence ruled out by the court, and many interesting original papers not before published...

Folded Facsimiles tipped in before t.-p.

Appel au tribunal de l'opinion publique, ou Recueil des jugements, arrêts, et autres pièces officielles relatives au procès encore existant entre Jaquinot de Pampelune et l'abbé Vinson, à l'occasion d'un ouvrage intitulé: Le concordat expliqué au roi.

Mode of access: Internet.

Report of the case John Dorrance against Arthur Fenner, tried at the December term, of the Court of common pleas, in the county of Providence, A.D. 1801; to which are added the proceedings in the case Arthur Fenner vs. John Dorrance.

Mode of access: Internet.

Arthur F. Naylor, et als., Defendants-Respondents : civil action on appeal from final judgment of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division - Burlington County. Sat below: Goldmann, J. S. C. Appendix to respondents' brief.

At head of title: Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division - Docket no. A-215-53.

A report of the trail of the cause of John Taylor vs. Edward C. Delavan : prosecuted for alleged libel ; tried at the Albany circuit, April, 1940 ; and Mr. Delavan's correspondence with the ex. committee of the Albany city temperance society, &c.

"This action ... is brought for two publications in the Evening journal, in the month of February, 1835 ... The declaration sets forth that the defendant meant to charge that impure, dirty and filthy water ... had, for years, been carted to the malt-house of the plaintill; ant that he had been guilty of using that water in preparing barley for malt."--p. 45.

The report of Hiram Maxwell's case, decided at the City-hall of the city of New-York, on the 3d day of February, 1823 : with the speech and doctrine advanced by John A. Graham, L.L.D., on the practice of taking the examinations and confessions in the police office of prisoners charged with crime; together with the letters and opinions of many of the greatest and wisest philosophers, civilians, orators, and statesmen in the United States.

Contains only Graham's speech and letters concerning it, from John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay and others.

In the Circuit Court of the United States. The County of San Mateo vs. The Southern Pacific Railroad Company. Argument of

Mode of access: Internet.

Damages for breach of contract

This practical book deals solely with those damages arising as a breach of contract, where the aim of the damages is to place the plaintiff in the same position as if the contract had been performed. The book is split into three main parts: general principles such as limitations, causation, remoteness, mitigation and contributory negligence; specific breaches, such as sale of goods, supply of services, travel contracts and sale of land; and general issues and procedures. The only authoritative practitioner work focusing on this area, it provides a high-level, comprehensive and practical text.

Jurors' use of social framework evidence

Monahan and Walker (1988) delineated three uses of social science evidence within the courts: social authority, social fact, and social framework. Social authority evidence is social science evidence used in making policy or law. Social fact evidence is social science evidence that describes research undertaken expressly for the case at hand. Social framework evidence involves providing conclusions from previously conducted social science research to assist jurors in evaluating the other evidence in the case. Although this type of evidence has traditionally been presented via expert testimony, Monahan and Walker (1988) have suggested that, because the social science research involved comes from the extant literature and is not the province of any particular expert, it would be more economical to have the judge present this information as part of the judicial instructions to the jury. This study tested the implicit assumption that the presentation of the social framework evidence by the judge will have the same impact on juror verdicts as presentation of this evidence by an expert. ^ Two hundred mock jurors watched a videotaped hostile work environment sexual harassment trial. The social framework evidence consisted of the discussion of factors that have been found to increase the likelihood of sex stereotyping of women by men. The trial included either no social framework evidence, social framework evidence presented by the expert, or social framework evidence presented in judicial instructions. ^ Results indicated that men who heard the social framework evidence from the judge were more likely to vote for the defendant than men who heard no social framework evidence. Men who heard the judicial instruction with the social framework evidence also rated the plaintiff as less credible than the other men and women in the study. Thus, it appears that, for men, social framework evidence presented by the judge harms the plaintiff's case by reducing ratings of her credibility, but the same evidence presented by an expert does not affect men's verdicts. For women, however, social framework evidence, irrespective of who presents it, enhances the plaintiff's case. ^

Juror need for cognition and sensitivity to methodological flaws in expert evidence

Two studies investigated the influence of juror need for cognition on the systematic and heuristic processing of expert evidence. U.S. citizens reporting for jury duty in South Florida read a 15-page summary of a hostile work environment case containing expert testimony. The expert described a study she had conducted on the effects of viewing sexualized materials on men's behavior toward women. Certain methodological features of the expert's research varied across experimental conditions. In Study 1 (N = 252), the expert's study was valid, contained a confound, or included the potential for experimenter bias (internal validity) and relied on a small or large sample (sample size) of college undergraduates or trucking employees (ecological validity). When the expert's study included trucking employees, high need for cognition jurors in Study 1 rated the expert more credible and trustworthy than did low need for cognition jurors. Jurors were insensitive to variations in the study's internal validity or sample size. Juror ratings of plaintiff credibility, plaintiff trustworthiness, and study quality were positively correlated with verdict. In Study 2 (N = 162), the expert's published or unpublished study (general acceptance) was either valid or lacked an appropriate control group (internal validity) and included a sample of college undergraduates or trucking employees (ecological validity). High need for cognition jurors in Study 2 found the defendant liable more often and evaluated the expert evidence more favorably when the expert's study was internally valid than when an appropriate control group was missing. Low need for cognition jurors did not differentiate between the internally valid and invalid study. Variations in the study's general acceptance and ecological validity did not affect juror judgments. Juror ratings of expert and plaintiff credibility, plaintiff trustworthiness, and study quality were positively correlated with verdict. The present research demonstrated that the need for cognition moderates juror sensitivity to expert evidence quality and that certain message-related heuristics influence juror judgments when ability or motivation to process systematically is low. ^

The effects of defendant account on damage award decisions

The purpose of this study was to examine whether the manner in which civil defendants account for their behavior influences compensatory and punitive damage awards. Jurors read three civil trial summaries, in which I manipulated injury severity (high vs. low), defendant reprehensibility (high vs. low), defendant status (individual vs. corporate), and account (concession, excuse, justification or refusal) in a factorial design. I also included four control groups in which the defendant stipulated liability. In all other conditions, participants read that a jury had found the defendant negligent. Only defendant reprehensibility influenced punitive awards. Both plaintiff injury and defendant reprehensibility influenced compensatory awards. When individuals offered justifications and when corporations offered excuses, jurors awarded lower compensatory awards against low reprehensibility defendants than against high reprehensibility defendants. Negligence stipulations led to lower damage awards for individuals than for corporations. Additionally, concessions tended to produce lower awards when combined with a stipulation of negligence as opposed to a jury decision. These findings support the hypothesis that in cases in which the defendant is clearly negligent, circumstances exist in which stipulating negligence and offering an apologetic account will lead to reduced damage awards decisions. Results indicate that individual and corporate defendants offering justifications and refusals should first consider the reprehensibility of their actions. In a broader realm, findings demonstrate that the manner in which a jury perceives the explanation given by the defendant is dependent upon defendant characteristics and case-specific factors. ^

Predicting jurors' decisions: The effects of repeated expression and forewarning in civil voir dire

To help lawyers uncover jurors' attitudes and predict verdict, litigation experts recommend that attorneys encourage jurors to repeatedly express their attitudes during voir dire. While social cognitive literature has established that repeated expression of attitudes increases accessibility and behavior predictability, the persuasive twist on the method exercised in trials deserves empirical investigation. Only one study has examined the use of repeated expression within a legal context with the results finding that the tactic increased accessibility, but did not influence the attitude verdict relationship. This dissertation reexamines the ability of civil attitudes to predict verdict in a civil trial and investigates the use of repeated expression as a persuasive tactic utilized by both parties (Plaintiff and Defense) within a civil voir dire in an attempt to increase attitudinal strength, via accessibility, and change attitudes to better predict verdict. This project also explores potential moderators, repetition by the opposing party and the use of a forewarning, to determine their ability to counter the effects of repeated expression on attitudes and verdict.^ This dissertation project asked subjects to take on the role of jurors in a civil case. During the voir dire questioning session, the number of times the participants were solicited to express their attitudes towards litigation crisis by both parties was manipulated (one vs. five). Also manipulated was the inclusion of a forewarning statement from the plaintiff, within which mock jurors were cautioned about the repeated tactics that the defense may use to influence their attitudes. Subsequently, participants engaged in a response latency task which measured the accessibility of their attitudes towards various case-related issues. After reading a vignette of a fictitious personal injury case, participants rendered verdict decisions and responded to an attitude evaluation scale. Exploratory factor analyses, Probit regressions, and path analyses were used to analyze the data. Results indicated that the act of repeated expression influenced both the accessibility and value of litigation crisis attitudes thus increasing the attitude-verdict relationship, but only when only one party engaged in it. Furthermore, the forewarning manipulation did moderate the effect of repeated expression on attitude change and verdict, supporting our hypothesis.^