Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Beech_Aircraft_Corp._v._Rainey an entity of type: Thing
Beech Aircraft Corporation v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed a longstanding conflict among the Federal Courts of Appeals over whether Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C), which provides an exception to the hearsay rule for public investigatory reports containing "factual findings," extends to conclusions and opinions contained in such reports. The court also considered whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to admit, on cross-examination, testimony intended to provide a more complete picture of a document about which the witness had testified on direct.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Beech Aircraft Corporation, Petitioner v. John C. Rainey, et al.
xsd:integer
37742882
xsd:integer
1100651039
rdf:langString
White, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy; Rehnquist, O'Connor
<second>
172800.0
rdf:langString
Cert. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
xsd:integer
153
xsd:integer
488
xsd:gMonthDay
--10-04
xsd:integer
1988
rdf:langString
Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey,
xsd:gMonthDay
--12-12
xsd:integer
1988
rdf:langString
Beech Aircraft Corporation, Petitioner v. John C. Rainey, et al.
rdf:langString
Portions of investigatory reports otherwise admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 803 are not inadmissible merely because they state a conclusion or opinion.
rdf:langString
Beech Aircraft Corporation v. Rainey
rdf:langString
Brennan
rdf:langString
Beech Aircraft Corporation v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed a longstanding conflict among the Federal Courts of Appeals over whether Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C), which provides an exception to the hearsay rule for public investigatory reports containing "factual findings," extends to conclusions and opinions contained in such reports. The court also considered whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to admit, on cross-examination, testimony intended to provide a more complete picture of a document about which the witness had testified on direct.
rdf:langString
Rehnquist
rdf:langString
O'Connor
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
10338