Wright v. Beard

5 Citing cases

  1. Scott v. Pritchett

    19-cv-12718 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 28, 2021)

    “Most courts apply a ‘[b]road inquiry,' looking to the totality of the circumstances that surround the statement when determining whether it possesses the requisite guarantees of trustworthiness.” Wright v. Beard, No. 14 Civ. 90, 2016 WL 7173787, at *5 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 8, 2016) (citation omitted). “In assessing the totality of the circumstances, the Court may consider the declarant's relationship to the parties, the motive of the declarant in making the statement, the extent to which the statement reflects the declarant's personal knowledge, and the consistency of any past statements by the declarant.”

  2. Johnson v. Adams

    19-cv-12331 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 28, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    “Most courts apply a ‘[b]road inquiry,' looking to the totality of the circumstances that surround the statement when determining whether it possesses the requisite guarantees of trustworthiness.” Wright v. Beard, No. 14 Civ. 90, 2016 WL 7173787, at *5 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 8, 2016) (citation omitted).

  3. Blankenship v. Dollar Tree Stores

    Case No. 3:19-cv-038 (S.D. Ohio Jul. 2, 2020)

    Each of these elements ultimately concern whether "the statement was the result of reflective thought or whether it was a spontaneous reaction to the exciting event." Wright v. Beard, 2016 WL 7173787, *3 (W.D. Ky. 2016) (citing Haggins v. Warden, Fort Pillow State Farm, 715 F.2d 1050, 1057 (6th Cir. 1983)). When determining whether a statement is sufficiently spontaneous, courts examine the length of time between the statement and the event.

  4. United States v. Maike

    613 F. Supp. 3d 991 (W.D. Ky. 2020)   Cited 2 times
    Admitting exhibits to show notice and knowledge

    Additionally, "[t]he rule does not apply to statements offered merely to show that they were made or had some effect on the hearer." Wright v. Beard , No. 1:14CV-00090-GNS-HBB, 2016 WL 7173787, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 8, 2016) (citing United States v. Miriani , 422 F.2d 150, 153 (6th Cir. 1970) ; Blair v. Henry Filters, Inc. , 505 F.3d 517, 524 (6th Cir. 2007) ). After a review of the case law and representations of the United States, the Court finds that Exhibit 134 is admissible to prove Maike's and Syn's notice and knowledge of continued problems with and complaints about the "products" offered by I2G and their response to the information.

  5. Beeler v. Norton Healthcare, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-573-DJH-RSE (W.D. Ky. Mar. 16, 2020)   Cited 2 times

    Accordingly, the fact that Tinal and Facktor repeated Knapper's statement does not create hearsay within hearsay. See Wright v. Beard, No. 1:14-CV-90-GNS-HBB, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169572, at *7 n.1 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 8, 2016). The Court must still determine whether the second layer of the statement—Facktor and Tinal repeating Knapper's comment to Beeler—constitutes hearsay.