link to Mitchell home

Volume 35: Issue 4

The Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the Minnesota Court of Appeals and Evidence Law

Electronic copies of the articles are available below. If you do not have Adobe Acrobat Reader, please click here. If you would like to purchase this issue or subscribe to the William Mitchell Law Review, click here.


Chief Justice Eric Magnuson
Opening Remarks

Harriet Lansing
Twenty-Five Years of Doing Minnesota Justice

Sam Hanson, Jonathan Schmidt, and Tara Reese Duginske
The Minnesota Court of Appeals: Arguing to, and Limitations of, an Error-Correcting Court

Retired Judge Bruce D. Willis
Suggestions from the Bench: Things Judges Wish That Appellate Lawyers Would Do Differently

David F. Herr and Haley N. Schaffer
Suggestions from the Practicing Bar: Things Practitioners Wish the Court of Appeals Would Do Differently

Richard L. Pemberton and Paul S. Almen
Significant Weight: The Impact of the Minnesota Court of Appeals Upon Civil Litigation

Moderated by Marianne Short
A Panel Discussion: The Impact of the Minnesota Court of Appeals on Legal Practice



Peter N. Thompson

Ted Sampsell-Jones
Spreigl Evidence: Still Searching for a Principled Rule

Lucinda E. Jesson and Peter B. Knapp
My Lawyer Told Me to Say I'm Sorry: Lawyers, Doctors, and Medical Apologies

Keiko L. Sugisaka and David F. Herr
Admissibility of E-Evidence in Minnesota: New Problems or Evidence as Usual?

Victor Hansen
The Usefulness of a Negative Example: What We Can Learn About Evidence Rules from the Government's Most Recent Efforts to Construct a Military Commissions Process

Professor Joëlle Anne Moreno
It's Just a Shot Away: MMR Vaccines and Autism and the End of the Daubertista Revolution

Stephen J. Cribari
Is Death Different? Dying Declarations and the Confrontation Clause After Crawford

Eileen A. Scallen
Coping with Crawford: Confrontation of Children and Other Challenging Witnesses




Copyright © 2008 William Mitchell Law Review
Member of the National Conference of Law Reviews

*Opinions expressed in the William Mitchell Law Review do not necessarily represent the views of the publication, its editors, William Mitchell College of Law, or any person connected therewith.