Admissibility Of Experimental Evidence

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

• Hisler v. State
  52 Fla. 30· Fla.· 1906-06-01 ·cited 60×
  Tom Hisler was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment for killing Ely Simmons. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction and granted a new trial, finding that the trial court erred in admitting experimental evidence (target shots) that lacked sufficient si
• Johnson v. State
  442 So. 2d 193· Fla.· 1983-11-23 ·cited 50×
  Terrell Johnson was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for killing James Dodson during a tavern robbery. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, rejecting challenges to the trial transcript reconstruction, the admission of gunpowder re
• Carlyle Francis Dempsey v. Shell OIL Co.
  589 So. 2d 373· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-11-13 ·cited 47×
  Dempsey appeals an adverse judgment in a personal injury case involving a nighttime pedestrian-vehicle collision. The appellate court reverses due to three evidentiary errors: improper impeachment on a collateral matter, improper restriction of expert cross-examination on headlig
• The Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Bell
  147 Fla. 734· Fla.· 1941-07-15 ·cited 39×
  The evidence was sufficient to submit to the jury the question of manner of death, and the trial court properly applied the presumption against suicide where the insurer disclaimed liability without affirmatively pleading suicide as a defense. The presumption against suicide prev
• Vitt v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc.
  340 So. 2d 962· Fla. 3d DCA· 1976-12-20 ·cited 35×
  Motorcycle accident victims appealed a jury verdict awarding them $125,000 and $35,000 respectively, challenging the admission of experimental evidence demonstrating the motorcycle's stopping ability and negotiating capability, along with other trial errors. The appellate court a
• Barnes v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  547 F.2d 275· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-18 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the admission of evidence from an experiment conducted under substantially dissimilar conditions was reversible error.
• Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. v. Mahaffy
  174 F.2d 305· 10th Cir.· 1949-04-06 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the truck driver's statement was admissible as a spontaneous declaration under the res gestae exception, and the exclusion of experimental evidence was not an abuse of discretion.
• Rindfleisch v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.
  498 So. 2d 488· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-11-04 ·cited 30×
  The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court erred in admitting irrelevant and prejudicial evidence from a ship's medical log.
• Thompson v. Carley
  140 F.2d 656· 8th Cir.· 1944-02-14 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the trial court's finding that the railroad failed to maintain a proper lookout, and that this failure was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries, notwithstanding his status as a trespasser or intoxication.
• Spires v. State
  50 Fla. 121· Fla.· 1905-06-01 ·cited 28×
  Tom Spires was convicted of rape and sentenced to death. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's refusal to allow a jury experiment to test whether the flash from a gun could illuminate a person's face sufficiently for identification, and challenged the sufficiency of evidence
• 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.
• Derr v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
  404 F.2d 634· 10th Cir.· 1968-12-05 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because sufficient evidence existed to support a jury finding of negligence and proximate cause, warranting a new trial.
• Ford Motor Co. v. Cochran
  205 So. 2d 551· Fla. 2d DCA· 1967-12-20 ·cited 25×
  This case involves an appeal by Ford Motor Company after a jury awarded $45,000 to an auto mechanic injured by a shattered bearing. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the plaintiff's experts' opinions were not discoverable and that the plaintiff sufficiently
• Hopkins v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
  199 F.2d 930· 3d Cir.· 1952-11-14 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to allow the jury to consider whether the defendant manufacturer was negligent in failing to warn of the specific dangers associated with its dynamite under certain drilling conditions.
• Mrs. Marie Bish v. Emp'rs Liab. Assurance Corp.
  236 F.2d 62· 5th Cir.· 1956-06-28 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions regarding negligence, res ipsa loquitur, and the duty to warn were proper, and that the exclusion of certain evidence was not an abuse of discretion.
• Wagner v. Int'l Harvester Co.
  611 F.2d 224· 8th Cir.· 1979-12-05 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the jury's findings were reconcilable and supported by substantial evidence, and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary or instructional rulings.
• Robinson v. Audi NSU Auto Union Aktienge-Sellschaft & Volkswagen of Am., Inc.
  739 F.2d 1481· 10th Cir.· 1984-07-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the exclusion of Volkswagen of America's prior statements regarding fuel tank risks was prejudicial error, requiring reversal and a new trial as to that defendant. However, the exclusion of similar statements as to Audi was proper due to agency timing.
• Hale v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
  820 F.2d 928· 8th Cir.· 1987-06-04 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the videotape demonstration and evidence of other accidents, but that the punitive damages award was excessive and required a remittitur or a new trial.
• Champeau v. Fruehauf Corp.
  814 F.2d 1271· 8th Cir.· 1987-04-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial due to judicial misconduct and that the admission of a videotaped experiment was proper.
• Aloysius Harkins v. Ford Motor Co.
  437 F.2d 276· 3d Cir.· 1970-12-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court's reasons for granting a new trial were insufficient on the merits, and therefore the order granting the new trial is vacated.
• Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. v. Morton Pharms., Inc.
  417 F.2d 921· 6th Cir.· 1969-09-30 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding tests on can crimping was prejudicial error, requiring a new trial, but affirmed the exclusion of evidence regarding a limitation of liability clause.
• Morton v. Hardwick Stove Co.
  138 So. 2d 807· Fla. 2d DCA· 1961-08-09 ·cited 15×
  Plaintiff Morton appealed from a directed verdict in her negligence action against Hardwick Stove Company for injuries from an allegedly defective gas stove. The appellate court affirmed the directed verdict, holding that the plaintiff's expert testimony regarding experiments on
• la France v. New York
  292 F.2d 649· 2d Cir.· 1961-07-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in excluding evidence of switch tests and that the jury verdict was not excessive.
• Freightways, Inc. v. Stafford
  217 F.2d 831· 8th Cir.· 1955-01-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court's findings of fact were irreconcilably conflicting and not supported by substantial evidence, and that certain evidence admitted was incompetent.
• Osborne v. United States
  542 F.2d 1015· 8th Cir.· 1976-10-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding a witness's reputation for truthfulness was harmless error, and that other challenged evidence was properly admitted.
• Pacheco v. United States
  367 F.2d 878· 10th Cir.· 1966-10-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to admit a tape recording of an experiment or in refusing a jury instruction, as the experiment lacked similarity of conditions and the instruction was not supported by evidence.
• Covington v. State
  145 Fla. 680· Fla.· 1941-01-24 ·cited 8×
  Robert Covington was convicted of manslaughter in the death of his wife Mary Lee Covington, who was shot in their home. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting multiple challenges to the indictment, admission of the victim's dying declaration, sufficiency of
• Lobel v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
  205 F.2d 927· 2d Cir.· 1953-07-13 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding certain testimony and evidence, as the alleged errors did not cast doubt on the trial's fairness or require upsetting the verdict.
• Gen. Motors Corp. v. Porritt
  891 So. 2d 1056· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-11-19 ·cited 6×
  General Motors appealed a $8.2 million jury verdict for Carl Porritt, who was injured when a seatbelt allegedly unlatched during a rollover accident. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court erred by admitting a videotape demonstrati
• Phillips v. State
  440 So. 2d 432· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-10-21 ·cited 6×
  Florida appellate court affirmed conviction where trial court properly excluded expert psychological testimony about photographic lineup suggestiveness, holding juries can assess witness perception without expert aid.
• Valdez v. United States
  326 F.2d 598· 9th Cir.· 1963-12-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court's finding of appellant's negligence was not clearly erroneous, barring recovery due to contributory negligence, and that appellant waived any irregularity in the admission of an unsigned deposition.
• Bonilla v. Yamaha Motors Corp.
  955 F.2d 150· 1st Cir.· 1992-01-31 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the trial court committed prejudicial error by admitting evidence of the plaintiff's prior and subsequent speeding tickets, as this evidence was not admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) or 608(b) and likely influenced the jury's verdict.
• Cont'l Cas. Co. v. McCLURE
  225 So. 2d 590· Fla. 2d DCA· 1969-06-25 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in excluding motion pictures of an experiment because the circumstances were not shown to be comparable to the accident.
• Eden v. Food Fair Stores, Inc.
  330 So. 2d 540· Fla. 3d DCA· 1976-04-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error in its jury instructions regarding driving under the influence and the presumption of intoxication, nor in admitting expert testimony about an experiment.
• Midwestern Wholesale Drug, Inc. v. GAS Serv. Co.
  442 F.2d 663· 10th Cir.· 1971-05-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that evidence of experiments on a similar, undamaged heater was admissible to illustrate expert testimony regarding the normal operation of the heater alleged to have caused the fire. The court also held that the trial court did not err in refusing a directed verdi
• Herbert v. Roberts, Jr.
  189 So. 2d 543· Fla. 1st DCA· 1966-08-23 ·cited 4×
  Herbert Roberts was convicted of second-degree murder in the shooting death of his wife. On appeal, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred in allowing a ballistics expert to testify about the distance from which the gun was fired based
• Silbernagel v. Voss
  265 F.2d 390· 7th Cir.· 1959-04-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding jury instructions, comments, or excluded testimony, and that substantial justice was done.
• Caro v. State
  303 So. 3d 591· Fla. 5th DCA· 2020-09-10 ·cited 1×
  Steven Caro was convicted of attempted second-degree murder based partly on a police detective's unscientific demonstration comparing bullet holes in test shirts fired from different distances. The court reversed, finding the demonstration inadmissible because critical conditions
• State v. Augustine Lasaro Arroyo
  454 So. 2d 21· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-07-24
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a suppression order and remanded for reconsideration, holding that the trial judge on remand failed to properly apply the appellate court's prior instructions by not independently evaluating the credibility of police testimony and the weight of
• Gregory v. Hardgrove
  419 F.2d 589· 2d Cir.· 1969-12-22
  The court held that the jury was warranted in finding no contributory negligence and that there was sufficient evidence to support recovery for future dental expenses.