Talk:Relevance (law)

Untitled

I am adding block quotes and references to serve as 'foundations' for discussion of the rules of evidence. At this time the jurisdiction in question in US Federal although I do plan to adjust the headings to reflect the US fed focus.

Obviously other jurisdictions should be added. --Colobikeguy (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added some other sections. Also, regarding the references, I would like to add references without 'id' because sometimes the order of the references change over the life of the page. After this pages reaches a certain 'maturity' such that the order of the references will not likely change... then the redundant long reference should be changed to id.--Colobikeguy (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

Since the definition of probative evidence is identical to the definition of what establishes relevance, it seems to me that these should be combined under one title. bd2412 T 00:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we need some segway sentences in this article to build up to the distinc nature of the terms "probative", "probative value", "probative evedience", etc. vs. "Relevance". First off... we should consider that dead link in the main title. I understand the merge... and I congradulate the good initiative, but really, I think think this needs some work. --CyclePat (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

relevance of equity and common law with reference to source of Kenyan law

discuss 105.161.4.172 (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]