Legal Definitions - relevant

In legal contexts, relevant refers to evidence or information that has a logical connection to a key issue in a case and helps to make a particular fact more or less probable than it would be without that information. For evidence to be considered relevant, it must not only relate to a fact, but that fact must also be important in deciding the outcome of the legal dispute. Essentially, if a piece of evidence can reasonably influence a judge or jury's understanding of a central point in contention, it is likely considered relevant.

Here are some examples:

• Contract Dispute: Imagine a small business sues a supplier, claiming the supplier failed to deliver a specialized machine by the agreed-upon date, causing the business significant financial loss. The supplier argues that no firm delivery date was ever established.

  • Relevant evidence in this scenario would include emails exchanged between the parties specifically discussing and confirming a delivery deadline, a signed purchase order that clearly states "delivery by October 15th," or testimony from an employee who was present during a meeting where both parties verbally agreed to a specific date.
  • How it illustrates "relevant": Each piece of this evidence directly addresses the central dispute: whether a delivery date was agreed upon and what that date was. This information makes it more or less probable that a specific delivery date was a binding part of the contract, thereby influencing the outcome of the breach of contract claim.

• Personal Injury Claim: Consider a case where a person sues a grocery store after slipping on a puddle of spilled milk and breaking their arm. The plaintiff claims the store was negligent for not cleaning the spill promptly, while the store asserts it had a robust cleaning schedule and couldn't have known about the spill.

  • Relevant evidence could include surveillance video footage showing the puddle existing for an hour before the fall, the store's cleaning logs indicating the aisle hadn't been checked in several hours, testimony from another customer who reported the spill to an employee earlier, or the plaintiff's medical records detailing the extent of their injuries and treatment costs.
  • How it illustrates "relevant": The video, cleaning logs, and witness testimony are relevant because they directly bear on whether the store knew or should have known about the hazard and acted reasonably to prevent harm. The medical records are relevant to the *damages* aspect of the case, proving the actual harm suffered and the financial impact of those injuries.

• Criminal Case (Theft): Suppose an individual is accused of stealing a valuable antique from a private collection. The defense claims the individual was out of the country at the time of the theft.

  • Relevant evidence would include security camera footage from the antique owner's property showing the accused entering and leaving with the item, forensic evidence like fingerprints found at the scene matching the accused, or testimony from a witness who saw the accused selling a similar antique shortly after the theft. Conversely, the accused's passport stamps and airline tickets showing they were indeed abroad at the time would also be highly relevant.
  • How it illustrates "relevant": The security footage, fingerprints, and witness testimony directly connect the accused to the crime, making their involvement more probable. The passport and travel documents are relevant because they directly support the alibi, making the accused's presence at the scene less probable. Both types of evidence directly address the core question of whether the accused committed the theft.