In discussing the intracies of Colorado law, Melin made reference to “that bane of law school students, the Dead Man’s Statute.”
Okay, I’ll bite. What is “the Dead Man’s Statute”?
(Why do I feel set up?) 
Its Aces and Eights right??
Right??
-Frankie
“Mother Mercy, can your loins bear fruit forever?/Is your fecundity a trammel or a treasure?”
-Bad Religion
I think it has something to do with how many feet his horse have on the ground. A rearing horse means the subject of the statute died when he fell off…
“You can be smart or pleasant. For years I was smart.
I recommend pleasant.”
Elwood P. Dowd
Melin, you started this, so I’ll let you field this one. What’s next, Fun Facts About the Statute of Frauds?
Oh dear, I’m afraid it sounds much better than it really is – it’s just a boring evidentiary rule.
The “Dead Man’s Statute” is a rule of evidence which says that someone who is making a claim against a dead person’s estate cannot testify regarding oral promises or declarations by the dead person to them. Black’s Law Dictionary describes it as “the last vestige of the disqualification of witnesses” because of the fact they have an interest in the outcome of the case.
Therefore, in that Colorado case I made reference to in the Marriage thread, the woman was making a claim against the estate of a dead man, looking for inheritance rights as a deceased spouse, even though there had never been a ceremonial marriage between them. When her claims to be a common-law wife failed, she asserted that the decedent had made promises to her to the effect that he would leave her all of his property.
The Colorado Supreme Court noted that the Colorado Dead Man’s Statute, § 13-90-102, C.R.S. (1987 Repl. Vol. 6A), unless for some reason not applicable, precluded plaintiff from testifying concerning her conversations with the decedent relating to her alleged contractual agreement with him for conveyance of personal property. (The Court went on to decide that the defendants had waived their right to rely on that statute, but that’s another story.)
When I studied for the bar they made us learn the Dead Man’s Statute, then swore that we would NEVER face a question on the bar exam which involved it.
They were wrong.
-Melin
Siamese attack puppet – California
Still neglecting and overprotecting my children
Now tell us about the Dead Man’s Float, Auntie Melin! And the Dead Man’s Brake!
Uke
and don’t forget the Dead Hand Statutes!!
and the stars o’erhead were dancing heel to toe
And what about Dead Man’s Curve?
…but when you get blue, and you’ve lost all your dreams, there’s nothing like a campfire and a can of beans!
Ice cream, soda water, and two scoops of dead man
<d&r>
This sig not Y2K compliant. Happy 1900.
Dead Man’s Switch… if only I could think of something funny for it…
- Rick
I think Melin should have to explain the fertile Octogenarian, now. 
Actually, I think she did, in the same thread which sparked this question.
In any event, the Fertile Octogenerian is not per se complicated to explain. You can simply assert that for purposes of the Rule Against Perpetuities, every person, no matter how old, is presumed to be able to have children. So in discussing how the Rule plays out, we can’t, as a matter of law, rule out a woman in her eighties having kids. Thus was born, pardon the pun, the Fertile Octogenerian.
Of course, that simply begs the question of what the Rule Against Perpetuities is.
For my part, the concept I had huge amounts of trouble with way back when was the difference between collateral estoppel and res judicata. The Fertile Octogenerian was a walk in the park by comparison!
- Rick
You mean issue preclusion versus claim preclusion?
::ducking and running::
-Melin
Siamese attack puppet – California
Still neglecting and overprotecting my children
Heh heh heh… and I didn’t even mention merger and bar!
I will say that if we had started out by learning “issue preclusion” and forgotten about collateral estoppel, life would have been easier. I’m told a lot of states are going to this now, as it happens. Here in Virginia, no such luck… common-law pleadings live free and roam the hallways.
- Rick
Now, you know that I love having all you lawyers here, but if y’all keep talking about this stuff that only ever comes up when Lori Partridge and Perseus had a case on LA Law, I’m gonna bundle all of you up with Nanobyte and throw you into MPSIMS.
…Or maybe Baby’s dad from Dirty Dancing…
Livin’ on Tums, vitamin E and Rogaine
Now wait a minute!! If we stop using res judicata and collateral estoppel, and substitute nice short easy words like “claim barred” or “issue barred”, where the hell will we attorneys get our inflated wages from?
You can’t, Manny, they’ve registered a tenancy by the entireties on the thread! 
… D & R …
::groaning::
Poly, that was SO bad I DEMAND an accord and satisfaction!
-Melin
Siamese attack puppet – California
Still neglecting and overprotecting my children
Actually, I think it’s really a tenancy at sufferance - pun most definitely intended.
- Rick
Hey, I learned that in pro-per school. (Of course, I soon overwrote it with my extensive (?) real-world knowledge; but it’s on quick recall from the book, at the next lawyer downpour.)
I presume the way the judge tells when an issue is precluded is simply by noting whether or not it was raised by a pro-per.
If e’er there were a thread,
More than this severely dead,
'Twould be by lawyers herein said.
Whereas:
Be it adjudged that this barristic hair ball be transferred to the MPSIMS venue in perpetuity.
Ray