Jordan v. Binns
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
712 F.3d 1123 (2013)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Betty Jordan (plaintiff) was in a car accident with Kelly Binns (defendant) that resulted in the amputation of Betty’s legs. At the scene of the accident, Betty told Binns that the accident was Betty’s fault. Ted Jordan (plaintiff), Betty’s husband, arrived at the scene shortly after the accident. Ted told Binns, as well as a police officer and an insurance adjuster, that Betty had said the accident was not Binns’s fault. The Jordans later brought suit against Binns for negligence and Ted’s loss of consortium. Over the Jordans’ objection, the district court admitted Ted’s statements to Binns, the police officer, and the insurance adjuster, recounting Betty’s statement that the accident was not Binns’s fault. The jury found in favor of Binns. The Jordans appealed, arguing that Ted’s statements were inadmissible hearsay because they were not actually his statements, but merely repetitions of what Betty had said.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Tinder, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
