Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

A trial court's error in an evidentiary ruling only rises to the level of harmful error if a party's substantial right is affected. See 28 U.S.C. § 2111; Fed. R. Evid. 103(a); Lubanski v. Coleco Indus., Inc., 929 F.2d 42, 46 (1st Cir. 1991). 'In determining whether an error affected a party's substantial right, 'the central question is whether this court can say with fair assurance . . . that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.'' Espeaignnette v. Gene Tierney Co., 43 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 1994) (quoting Lubanski, 929 F.2d at 46 (internal quotations omitted)). Factors a court must consider in determining whether substantial rights are implicated include both the centrality of the evidence and the prejudicial effect of its exclusion or inclusion. Lubanski, 929 F.2d at 46. A court must weigh these factors in ''the context of the case as gleaned from the record as a whole.'' Id. (quoting Vincent v. Louis Marx & Co., 874 F.2d 36, 41 (1st Cir. 1989)). Courts have repeatedly noted that 'no substantial right of the party is affected where the evidence omitted was cumulative as to other admitted evidence.' Doty, 908 ...

Register or login to access full content