Stacy sued Carla in Texarkana state court for wrongful termination of employment. During Stacy's case-in-chief, Stacy argues that Carla fired her because Stacy discovered Carla's illegal business practices. The Texarkana employment protection statute requires that Stacy show she was employed by Carla, that her termination was without cause, and that she filed a grievance with her company's Board of Directors in order to receive monetary damages and reinstatement. Stacy presents evidence of employment and termination without cause, but fails to show that she filed a grievance. At the conclusion of Stacy's case, Carla filed a motion to dismiss. What is the court's likely action?

Ned is suing Kristen for negligence in Texarkana state court. Ned alleges that Kristen failed to adequately shovel the snow on the sidewalk in front of her coffee shop. In addition, Ned states that Kristen left dangerous black ice on the uncovered sidewalk area and that he slipped and fell, breaking his wrist. On direct examination, Ned testifies that he carefully attempted to maneuver around the snow and ice, but that there was no way to pass and as a result, he fell. Ned also testifies that the fall caused the broken wrist. On cross-examination, Kristen's attorney inquired into a hockey game that Ned had played in a week before in which he had injured the same wrist that allegedly broke when he fell. In response to the question, Ned denied sustaining an injury during a hockey game. Kristen's attorney provided an x-ray of the wrist and a doctor's written deposition supporting that Ned's wrist break was sustained in the game. Ned finally confessed that the injury was not caused by his fall in front of Kristen's coffee shop. Is the cross-examination permissible? I. Yes, because the x-ray and the doctor's deposition are related to the cause of Ned's injury. II. Yes, because the cross-examination attempts to attack the plaintiff's case by offering an alternative cause of the injury. III. No, because the cross-examination is outside the scope of the direct examination. IV. No, because the cross-examination does not go to his credibility.

Stan sued Trent in the state of Texarkana for damages based on Texarkana slander laws. Stan alleges that Trent, who was interviewed on national television, stated on air that Stan "viewed child pornography on the internet on a regular basis". Stan, outraged that Trent's comment was a complete lie and would negatively hurt his career and image, sued Trent. During the plaintiff's case-in-chief, Stan established that the statement was false and that it had been published to millions of viewers across the country. As the last witness, Stan took the witness stand to testify. He attested to the fact that his career had been significantly and negatively impacted by the comment, and socially he has been ostracized in Texarkana City. On cross-examination, Trent's attorney attempted to raise questions regarding his custody battle for his two kids with his estranged wife, Estelle. Is this a proper topic for cross-examination? Note that Texarkana follows the cross-examination rules commonly found in a majority of jurisdictions.

After a defendant conducts cross-examination of plaintiff's witness, it is permissible for the plaintiff's attorney to do which of the following?

Elena was representing her client in a dispute over an authentic handwritten draft of the Gettysburg address. The draft contained the date July of 1862 (the actual Gettysburg address was delivered in November 19, 1863), and had notations in the handwriting of President Abraham Lincoln. As part of her case, Elena sought to introduce the date the address was delivered. What is the best way for Elena to introduce the date into court?

Stephanie was suing Ricardo in Texarkana state court for damages suffered when Ricardo crashed his van into Stephanie's car on July 5, 2003. Neither party disputes that the accident occurred on that date. What is the most efficient way for both parties to introduce the date of the accident?

Edward sued Thomas in Texarkana state court for negligence. Thomas, the owner of a grocery store in Texarkana City, failed to maintain clean floors. On February 28, 2003, Edward was walking through the produce section when he slipped and fell on a banana peel that had been negligently left on the floor. During plaintiff's case-in-chief, Edward's attorney demonstrated that Thomas had a duty to maintain a safe and clean environment, that the banana peel caused the physical injury, and that he sustained damages. However, Edward's attorney failed to establish that there was a breach of duty, which is required under Texarkana's negligence statute. At the conclusion of Edward's case-in-chief, Thomas's attorney filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law. At this time, Edward's attorney provided the court with evidence of the breach. How should the court decide on the issue of Thomas's motion?

Hearsay is:

While walking on the pathway into Stuart's house, Haley slips and falls on some ice that has accumulated on the slate, injuring her knee. Her friend Sarah accompanied Haley at the time. A few days later, Sarah tells her friend Norman about the incident and says, "It looked like Stuart had never salted his pathway!" Haley brings an action against Stuart to recover damages for her injuries. In support of her case, Haley's attorney calls Norman as a witness and asks: "What did Sarah tell you about the condition of Stuart's pathway?" Stuart objects to the question on the ground that it calls for inadmissible hearsay. Should the court sustain or overrule the objection?