Any law school graduate will tell you that when picking your outline tool you need to pick the best because your outlines are the most important study tool you will use throughout your law school career. Developed by legendary study aid author Steve Emanuel, Emanuel® Law Outlines (ELOs) are the #1 outline choice among law students. An ELO ensures that you understand the concepts as you learn them in class and helps you study for exams throughout the semester. Here's why you need an ELO from your first day of class right through your final exam: ELOs help you focus on the concepts and issues you need to master to succeed on exams. They are easy to understand: Each ELO contains comprehensive coverage of the topics, cases, and black letter law found in your specific casebook, but is explained in a way that is understandable. The Quiz Yourself and Essay Q&A features help you test your knowledge throughout the semester. Exam Tips alert you to the issues and fact patterns that commonly pop up on exams. The Capsule Summary provides a quick review of the key concepts covered in the full Outline—perfect for exam review! New to the Tenth Edition: New coverage of FRE 106’s “rule of completeness,” by which if one party introduces all or part of an oral or written statement, the adverse party may require the immediate introduction of any other part (or any other statement) that in fairness “ought to be considered at the same time.” The Rule also says that the adverse party may introduce the other material “over a hearsay objection.” Greater coverage of FRE 801(d)(2)(B)’s hearsay exclusion for adoptive admissions, by which a proponent can offer against an adverse party a statement made by a third person, if the proponent shows that the adverse party “manifested that it adopted [the third person’s statement] or believed [it] to be true.” In particular, we’ve expanded our discussion of situations where the proponent claims that the adverse party’s silence in the face of the third person’s statement manifested the party’s adoption of the statement. Extended coverage of Rule 803(2)’s hearsay exception for excited utterances, construed by courts to include the requirement that the proponent must show that the declarant personally observed the incident. Updated discussion of a special problem that arises in connection with Rule 803(8)(A)’s “public records” exception. Rule 803(8)(A)(ii) expressly says that the public records exception cannot be used by the government to introduce against criminal defendant a report of a “matter observed by law-enforcement personnel” (e.g., a report prepared by a prosecution-controlled lab). But we discuss the controversy about whether this prohibition also prevents such a public report from being admitted under another exception for which it qualifies (e.g., the exception for business-records, for past-recollection-recorded, or for the residual “catch all”). Discussion of a 2023 amendment to Rule 702 on expert testimony, adding the requirement that the expert’s opinion must “reflect[] a reliable application of the principles and methods [used by the expert] to the facts of the case.”