37, preferred to adhere to ruling case law, citing inter alia, Hamling v. In dissent, Chief Judge Seitz, 723 F.2d 238, 269 n. 1983), reversed on other grounds sub nom. 3122, 57 L.Ed.2d 1147 (1978) we applied the general rule: "The relevancy of the testimony was a matter within the trial court's discretion." Six years later, without a court in banc permitting a departure from this court's precedent, a divided panel with a visiting judge joining in the majority opinion, said: "Our review of a Rule 402 relevancy ruling is plenary." In re Japanese Electronic Products, 723 F.2d 238, 269 (3d Cir. We have a rather unfortunate conflict, however, in panel decisions in this court. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence ยง 5166 n.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |