Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings

465 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Morita v. S. Cal. Perma-Nente Med. Grp.
  541 F.2d 217· 9th Cir.· 1976-08-17 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination because he was not qualified for the promotion he sought, and the statistical and collateral evidence offered were insufficient to prove discrimination.
• Mims v. United States
  254 F.2d 654· 9th Cir.· 1958-03-28 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in failing to give specific jury instructions regarding accomplice and perjurer testimony, nor in refusing to allow inquiry into the business relationship between the defendant and the father of an alleged accomplice, as the evidenc
• Powell v. Rockwell Int'l Corp.
  788 F.2d 279· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-28 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the jury's finding of retaliatory discharge was supported by sufficient evidence and that an incorrect jury instruction on 'willfulness' was harmless error given the facts.
• United States v. Leichtnam
  948 F.2d 370· 7th Cir.· 1991-11-21 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the police's forced entry complied with the knock-and-announce statute, and that the defendant's argument regarding constructive amendment of the indictment was not preserved for appeal.
• Peteet v. DOW Chem. Co.
  868 F.2d 1428· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-04 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony linking herbicide exposure to cancer and in denying motions for a new trial and venue transfer.
• Hill v. The Equitable Tr. Co. & Merchantile Safe Deposit & Tr. Co.
  851 F.2d 691· 3d Cir.· 1988-07-14 ·cited 34×
  The court held that its in banc decision in In Re: Data Access Sys. Sec. Litig. should be applied retroactively because plaintiffs had no reasonable basis to rely on prior inconsistent precedent, and affirmed the district court's judgment.
• Gunsby v. State
  574 So. 2d 1085· Fla.· 1991-01-15 ·cited 33×
  Donald Gunsby appeals his first-degree murder conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court following a jury recommendation of death by 9-3 vote. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, finding no reversible error in the guilt phase and pr
• Murphy v. City OF Flagler Beach
  761 F.2d 622· 11th Cir.· 1985-05-28 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the trial judge erred in excluding relevant evidence and making prejudicial comments, requiring a retrial on the issue of the police chief's good faith and justification for termination. The court also found that the city was not vicariously liable for illegal
• United States v. Harris
  932 F.2d 1529· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-03 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no merit in the appellants' various challenges regarding evidence admission, jury instructions, statutory interpretation, suppression motions, and sentencing guideline applications.
• United States v. Hernandez
  829 F.2d 988· 10th Cir.· 1987-09-22 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motions to sever, suppress wiretap evidence, disclose informants, admit post-arrest threat evidence, or in admitting co-conspirator statements.
• United States v. Grote
  632 F.2d 387· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-14 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding no merit in the appellant's various challenges to the trial proceedings and evidence.
• Cedric Council v. State
  691 So. 2d 1192· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-04-23 ·cited 31×
  The court held that a gun found during a search incident to arrest was admissible as relevant evidence to prove the defendant's identity, even if it did not perfectly match witness descriptions, because it shared significant similarities with the weapon used in the robbery.
• United States v. Carter
  910 F.2d 1524· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-23 ·cited 31×
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentence, holding that his confessions were voluntary and admissible, and that his classification as a career offender was proper.
• Wilhelm v. Blue Bell, Inc.
  773 F.2d 1429· 4th Cir.· 1985-09-18 ·cited 31×
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding of age discrimination, but the jury instruction on willfulness was erroneous. Therefore, the denial of judgment notwithstanding the verdict is affirmed, but the award of liquidated damages is reverse
• United States v. Grover Cleveland Barnes
  909 F.2d 1059· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-09 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated, the defendant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel, the seized revolver was admissible, the search warrant was supported by probable cause, and the notebook was properly admitted
• United States v. DE LA Torre
  634 F.2d 792· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-19 ·cited 30×
  Separate and distinct false declarations in trial testimony, requiring different factual proof of falsity, may properly be charged in separate counts, even if related to the same transaction.
• United States v. Francene Wilson Isaacs and Isaac Washington
  516 F.2d 409· 5th Cir.· 1975-07-25 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony and that sufficient evidence supported the conspiracy conviction.
• Nixon Ward v. State
  59 So. 3d 1220· Fla. 4th DCA· 2011-05-04 ·cited 29×
  Nixon Ward was convicted of fleeing and eluding law enforcement and driving without a valid license following a vehicle pursuit. The trial court improperly admitted extensive and detailed evidence of an uncharged shooting incident as context for the charged crimes, which the appe
• United States v. Concepcion Carrasco and Francisco Diaz
  887 F.2d 794· 7th Cir.· 1989-10-19 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the tape recordings and transcripts were admissible because the government established their authenticity, accuracy, and truthfulness through eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence, and that the defendants' voices were properly identified.
• United States v. Cuevas
  847 F.2d 1417· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-02 ·cited 29×
  The exclusion of expert testimony regarding legitimate currency exchange practices, which was material to the defendant's defense, violated the defendant's constitutional right to present a defense and necessitates a new trial.
• United States v. Anderson
  933 F.2d 1261· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-07 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the admissibility of evidence of prior fires at the defendant's factory could not be determined on the record due to the trial court's failure to properly apply the Beechum test and Rule 104(b) regarding conditional relevancy.
• United States v. Sato
  814 F.2d 449· 7th Cir.· 1987-03-16 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit an unpublished order as evidence and in imposing a $20,000 fine, as the order was not relevant to the defense and the fine was within statutory limits and not excessive.
• United States v. COX
  633 F.2d 871· 9th Cir.· 1980-12-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that admitting mockup bombs into the jury room, even if not ideal, was not reversible error given the limiting instruction and opportunity for cross-examination. It also held that the prosecutor's closing argument and witness testimony, while potentially improper,
• United States v. Green
  600 F.2d 154· 8th Cir.· 1979-06-11 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator statements, even if not made in furtherance of the conspiracy, was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence, and that other evidentiary and constitutional claims lacked merit.
• Christoffel v. United States
  200 F.2d 734· D.C. Cir.· 1952-09-18 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error in its rulings on evidence, cross-examination, or the admission of prior testimony, and therefore affirmed the conviction.
• Triplett v. State
  947 So. 2d 702· Fla. 5th DCA· 2007-02-09 ·cited 27×
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting similar fact evidence because it was relevant to prove intent, plan, and absence of mistake, and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
• United States v. Lino Catabran
  836 F.2d 453· 9th Cir.· 1988-01-06 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting computer printouts as business records, allowing testimony about carpet removal, or denying motions for severance and mistrial, and that the defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel.
• Dickerson v. Metro. Dade Cnty.
  659 F.2d 574· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-19 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the EEOC investigator's opinion testimony and that the evidence supported the finding that the plaintiff was not discharged in retaliation for filing an EEOC complaint.
• United States v. Abodeely
  801 F.2d 1020· 8th Cir.· 1986-09-22 ·cited 26×
  The court held that evidence of the defendant's involvement in prostitution and gambling was admissible in his tax evasion trial because it was relevant to proving unreported taxable income and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
• Anderson v. Malloy
  700 F.2d 1208· 8th Cir.· 1983-03-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that testimony regarding subsequent remedial measures did not raise the issue of feasibility, but rather concerned recommendations.
• Collins v. B. F. Goodrich Co.
  558 F.2d 908· 8th Cir.· 1977-07-28 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding experimental test results or in instructing the jury on assumption of risk, as the plaintiff's own actions in overinflating the tire caused his injury.
• United States v. Baldivid
  465 F.2d 1277· 4th Cir.· 1972-08-21 ·cited 26×
  The court held that evidence of prior crimes was admissible to prove intent and knowledge, and that the value of the stolen property was sufficiently established for jurisdictional purposes.
• Hurst v. United States & Don Hight
  882 F.2d 306· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Corps' failure to issue a prohibitory order when aware of permit violations constituted a breach of a nondiscretionary duty under its own regulations, thus waiving sovereign immunity under the FTCA. The court also held that the admission of expert and lay
• United States v. Drews
  877 F.2d 10· 8th Cir.· 1989-06-08 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the substance and plea agreements, nor was it required to give a specific cautionary instruction regarding accomplice testimony, and the evidence was sufficient for conviction.
• United States v. Wiley
  846 F.2d 150· 2d Cir.· 1988-05-06 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support Reynolds' conviction for aiding and abetting the SCS wire fraud scheme, reversing that conviction. Other convictions were affirmed.
• United States v. Olsowy
  836 F.2d 439· 9th Cir.· 1988-01-04 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the 'exculpatory no' defense does not apply to false statements made in support of a claim against the government, and that multiple convictions for identical false statements made in response to the same questions are impermissible.
• Rainey v. Beech Aircraft Corp.
  784 F.2d 1523· 11th Cir.· 1986-03-25 ·cited 24×
  The court is bound by precedent to exclude evaluative conclusions in a report under Fed.R.Evid. 803(8)(c).
• Purnell v. Mo. Dep't OF Corr.
  753 F.2d 703· 8th Cir.· 1985-02-01 ·cited 24×
  The court should affirm the district court's dismissal for failure to exhaust state remedies, as the state's concession of exhaustion was based on a mistake and thus ineffective.
• United States v. Tucker
  638 F.2d 1292· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that waitresses performing functions necessary or helpful to an illegal gambling business can be counted towards the five-person jurisdictional requirement, and that the same five individuals need not participate for the entire 30-day period.
• Sheehy v. S. Pac. Transp. Co.
  631 F.2d 649· 9th Cir.· 1980-11-03 ·cited 24×
  The court held that admitting evidence of collateral disability benefits in a FELA action is reversible error, and that the Federal Safety Appliance Act claim should have been submitted to the jury.
• David v. Longenecker
  594 F.2d 1283· 9th Cir.· 1979-04-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not err in submitting the case to the jury, admitting the recall letter and expert's prior statement, or in its jury instructions regarding defect and causation.
• United States v. Bordallo
  857 F.2d 519· 9th Cir.· 1988-08-30 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the defendant's convictions for witness tampering and conspiracy to obstruct justice were affirmed, but convictions for bribery, conspiracy to commit bribery, extortion, and conspiracy to commit extortion were reversed.
• United States v. Dunn
  946 F.2d 615· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that evidence of drug dealing was relevant to motive and corroboration, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting or excluding certain evidence. The court also affirmed the sentence enhancement for prior violent felonies and the classifi
• United States v. LaCHANCE
  817 F.2d 1491· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-01 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the district court did not err in denying motions for severance, admitting evidence, or refusing hybrid representation.
• United States v. Fermin P. Castillo
  814 F.2d 351· 7th Cir.· 1987-02-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of conviction for mail fraud and conspiracy, and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary or procedural rulings.
• United States v. Musa "Moses" Sweiss
  800 F.2d 684· 7th Cir.· 1986-09-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that while portions of the excluded tape recording were admissible under the rule of completeness, the defendant waived the issue by failing to lay a sufficient foundation at trial.
• Smalley v. United States
  798 F.2d 1182· 8th Cir.· 1986-08-20 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the government did not violate Brady v. Maryland by withholding evidence that the defense already possessed, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding extrinsic evidence regarding a witness's drug use, as it was not sufficiently rel
• United States v. Eakes
  783 F.2d 499· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-19 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court's continuance did not violate the Speedy Trial Act, and the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove the substance was cocaine. However, the judgment erroneously recited convictions for charges not in the indictment.
• Willeva Lindsey v. Miss. Research & Dev. Ctr.
  652 F.2d 488· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or pretext, and her First Amendment claims lacked merit, thus affirming the trial court's decision.
• Manchack v. S/S Overseas Progress
  524 F.2d 918· 5th Cir.· 1975-12-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a jury verdict with an evidentiary basis is not clearly erroneous, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding evidence admissibility or judicial comments.