Admissions By A Party Opponent

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

• Coughlin v. Capitol Cement Co.
  571 F.2d 290· 5th Cir.· 1978-04-10 ·cited 195×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict, holding that the plaintiffs failed to preserve the sufficiency of the evidence issue for appeal and that the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, were adequate.
• Bell v. City OF Milwaukee
  746 F.2d 1205· 7th Cir.· 1984-09-04 ·cited 145×
  The court held that the district court properly admitted evidence of a conspiracy to conceal the truth and that certain civil rights claims were not time-barred.
• United States v. Kenny
  645 F.2d 1323· 9th Cir.· 1981-01-23 ·cited 144×
  The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to support a finding of a single conspiracy, and that the trial court did not err in its rulings on the order of proof, admission of evidence, or jury instructions.
• United States v. Ghassan L. Ammar
  714 F.2d 238· 3d Cir.· 1983-06-30 ·cited 140×
  The court held that while the district court was not required to hold an in limine hearing, it should have made explicit credibility findings when the evidence aliunde relied on witness testimony whose credibility was challenged.
• United States v. Greene
  497 F.2d 1068· 7th Cir.· 1974-06-04 ·cited 114×
  The dissenting judge argues that the trial court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury on the consequences of an insanity acquittal, which likely prejudiced the defendant.
• Huff v. White Motor Corp.
  609 F.2d 286· 7th Cir.· 1979-10-09 ·cited 110×
  The court held that a decedent's statement about an accident should have been admitted under the residual hearsay exception if the declarant was mentally competent, and that the Indiana wrongful death statute does not authorize punitive damages.
• Farner v. Paccar, Inc.
  562 F.2d 518· 8th Cir.· 1977-08-31 ·cited 94×
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict that a design defect in the truck's suspension system proximately caused the accident, and that the trial court did not err in admitting certain evidence.
• Collins v. Wayne Corp.
  621 F.2d 777· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-18 ·cited 89×
  The court held that the district court erred in refusing to allow the plaintiffs to offer an expert's deposition as an admission of the defendant, but this error was harmless. The court also held that the district court did not err in allowing cross-examination of the plaintiffs'
• United States v. Massa
  740 F.2d 629· 8th Cir.· 1984-08-06 ·cited 85×
  The court affirmed Massa's conviction on all counts and Skinner's conviction on all but three counts of interstate transportation of forged securities, finding no prejudicial variance and that any error in admitting coconspirator hearsay was harmless.
• United States v. Yehuda Draiman
  784 F.2d 248· 7th Cir.· 1986-02-21 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the mail fraud convictions, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings.
• United States v. Smith
  578 F.2d 1227· 8th Cir.· 1978-05-17 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the admission of certain tape-recorded statements, even if inadmissible, constituted harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to Leonard Smith's conviction.
• United States v. Cimino
  321 F.2d 509· 2d Cir.· 1963-07-23 ·cited 70×
  The court held that a judge in a bench trial can disregard prejudicial information in Jencks Act material, and that the trial was not flawed by the unavailability of an informant or the indictment's vagueness.
• United States v. Tamura
  694 F.2d 591· 9th Cir.· 1982-12-10 ·cited 65×
  The court affirmed Tamura's conviction, finding no reversible error in the admission of evidence or the court's procedural rulings.
• United States v. Grunberger
  431 F.2d 1062· 2d Cir.· 1970-09-14 ·cited 65×
  The cumulative effect of errors at trial, including judicial bias, prosecutorial misconduct, and improper jury instructions, requires reversal of the conviction.
• Farina v. State
  679 So. 2d 1151· Fla.· 1996-04-18 ·cited 63×
  Anthony Farina was convicted of first-degree murder in a fatal Taco Bell robbery and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and non-capital sentences but vacated the death sentence because the trial court erroneously excluded for cause a qualified p
• United States v. Rucker
  586 F.2d 899· 2d Cir.· 1978-09-28 ·cited 60×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance, admitting prior conviction evidence, or in its jury instructions, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Ojala
  544 F.2d 940· 8th Cir.· 1976-11-08 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of impermissible selective prosecution and that the admission of his attorney's statements and the jury instructions were proper.
• United States v. McCORKLE
  511 F.2d 482· 7th Cir.· 1975-02-24 ·cited 55×
• McQUEENEY v. Wilmington Tr. Co.
  779 F.2d 916· 3d Cir.· 1985-12-26 ·cited 53×
  The court held that evidence of subornation of perjury is relevant under Rule 401 and, absent substantial unfair prejudice, admissible under Rule 403, and that the standard for harmless error review in civil cases is the same as in criminal cases ('highly probable' the error did
• United States v. Ivey
  546 F.2d 139· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-28 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the search of the aircraft was a lawful border search, and the defendants' other claims of error were without merit.
• Taylor v. The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co.
  344 F.2d 281· 2d Cir.· 1965-04-02 ·cited 53×
  The court held that a witness's prior statement cannot be used for impeachment if the witness testifies to no damaging facts, only a lack of knowledge. It also held that an objection based on a statute not raised at trial cannot be considered on appeal.
• United States v. Collins
  552 F.2d 243· 8th Cir.· 1977-03-28 ·cited 52×
  The court affirmed convictions, finding sufficient evidence for conspiracy and distribution, that jury instructions were properly handled or waived, and that prior convictions could be used for impeachment.
• United States v. Kampiles
  609 F.2d 1233· 7th Cir.· 1979-11-15 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, venue was proper, the trial court adequately handled pre-trial publicity, and the defendant's confession and admissions were properly admitted into evidence.
• United States v. McKEON
  738 F.2d 26· 2d Cir.· 1984-06-20 ·cited 50×
  The court held that a prior opening statement by defense counsel is admissible against a criminal defendant in a subsequent trial if it constitutes an admission of a party-opponent and meets specific evidentiary standards, and that disqualification of counsel was proper when thei
• United States v. Morgan O'Brien
  618 F.2d 1234· 7th Cir.· 1980-04-08 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the admission of prior similar acts evidence, edited recorded conversations, and the prosecutor's remarks did not constitute reversible error, and affirmed the convictions.
• United States v. DiZENZO
  500 F.2d 263· 4th Cir.· 1974-07-17 ·cited 48×
  The court held that evidence of the defendant's subsequent conversations about selling counterfeit obligations was admissible because it was relevant to his knowledge and intent, and its probative value outweighed the risk of prejudice.
• United States v. van Dyke
  605 F.2d 220· 6th Cir.· 1979-09-13 ·cited 47×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding no merit in the defendant's claims regarding speedy trial, fair trial, admission of evidence, or jury misconduct.
• United States v. Inadi
  748 F.2d 812· 3d Cir.· 1984-11-13 ·cited 46×
  The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause requires the government to demonstrate the unavailability of a non-testifying coconspirator before admitting their out-of-court statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E). The government failed to meet this burden for John Laza
• Oreck Corp. v. Whirlpool Corp. & Sears Roebuck & Co.
  639 F.2d 75· 2d Cir.· 1980-11-05 ·cited 46×
  The court held that Oreck failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a conspiracy between Whirlpool and Sears in restraint of trade, affirming the directed verdict.
• United States v. Rosenstein
  474 F.2d 705· 2d Cir.· 1973-01-26 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the admission of certain Liechtenstein documents was not reversible error, as they were admissible either as admissions by the defendants or as declarations of co-conspirators, despite not meeting the business records exception.
• United States v. Castellana
  349 F.2d 264· 2d Cir.· 1965-07-19 ·cited 46×
  The court, in part, dissented from the majority's decision, arguing for new trials for certain defendants based on statutory protections and the improper admission of evidence.
• United States v. Feldman
  136 F.2d 394· 2d Cir.· 1943-06-08 ·cited 46×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial court committed reversible errors, particularly in limiting cross-examination and admitting questionable evidence, leading to a conviction based on general amoral conduct rather than specific intent to defraud.
• Cotton v. State
  763 So. 2d 437· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-06-09 ·cited 45×
  A defendant's out-of-court exculpatory statement offered for the truth of its content is inadmissible hearsay unless it falls within a recognized exception to the hearsay rule or qualifies under fairness principles such as the rule of completeness. The trial court did not abuse i
• Emery J. Hill v. Spiegel, Inc.
  708 F.2d 233· 6th Cir.· 1983-05-31 ·cited 45×
  The court held that damages for pain and suffering are not recoverable under the ADEA and that certain employee statements admitted as hearsay were inadmissible. The court also found that liquidated damages are mandatory upon a finding of willfulness.
• United States v. Ballard
  779 F.2d 287· 5th Cir.· 1986-01-03 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the attorney-client privilege does not shield communications made for the purpose of furthering a crime or fraud, and that the defendant's civil deposition testimony was admissible as an admission by a party-opponent.
• United States v. Ruiz
  579 F.2d 670· 1st Cir.· 1978-06-28 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting evidence of police officers' prior suspensions for excessive force, excluding uniformed officers from the courtroom, and admitting the defendant's arrest report and grand jury testimony.
• Jacques L. LeROY ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Paul LeRoy v. Sabena Belgian World Airlines (Societe Anonyme Belge d'Exploitation de la Navigation Aerienne)
  344 F.2d 266· 2d Cir.· 1965-03-31 ·cited 44×
  The court held that while a substantial recovery was warranted, the case should not be remanded for a recomputation of damages, with a minor adjustment for a mathematical error.
• United States v. Garmany
  762 F.2d 929· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-11 ·cited 41×
  The court held that requiring a defendant to pay travel fees for inmate witnesses did not violate the Sixth Amendment's compulsory process clause, absent a showing of indigency and prejudice. The court also held that the denial of a continuance and other evidentiary rulings did n
• United States v. Tuchow
  768 F.2d 855· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-19 ·cited 40×
  The court held that 'other acts' evidence was properly admitted under Rule 404(b) to show intent and that state of mind testimony was admissible under Rule 803(3) for Hobbs Act prosecutions. Convictions are affirmed, but the case is remanded for allocution.
• Hunt v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co.
  327 So. 2d 193· Fla.· 1976-01-14 ·cited 40×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a District Court of Appeal decision that had overturned a $200,000 judgment in a federal railway injury case. The reversal turned on the admissibility of testimony about a phone call from the engineer suggesting he had lied in his deposition, wh
• Roberts v. The City OF Troy & Forrest O. Fisher
  773 F.2d 720· 6th Cir.· 1985-09-30 ·cited 38×
  The court's majority opinion, which this concurrence agrees with, likely found that the Parratt-Beebe analysis for procedural due process claims was inapplicable to deprivations of life, and that the conduct was not random and unauthorized, nor was there an adequate post-deprivat
• United States v. Teodoro Ariza-Ibarra
  605 F.2d 1216· 1st Cir.· 1979-09-20 ·cited 38×
  The court held that admitting evidence of a non-testifying informant's reliability and past identifications constituted reversible error, violating the defendants' right to confrontation.
• United States v. Bolden
  514 F.2d 1301· D.C. Cir.· 1975-06-19 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial judge's failure to fully respond to a jury's specific questions about the law of felony-murder constituted reversible error, requiring a new trial on that charge. Sentencing procedures also required a remand for resentencing.
• Gammon v. State
  778 So. 2d 390· Fla. 2d DCA· 2001-01-19 ·cited 36×
  Hearsay evidence, when combined with admissible evidence such as a defendant's admissions, can form a sufficient basis for revoking probation.
• Woodworth v. Woodworth
  385 So. 2d 1024· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-05-21 ·cited 36×
  In a divorce modification case, the court determined that paragraph 12 of a separation agreement providing $300/month payments was subject to modification as alimony (not a property settlement), while paragraph 3 regarding life insurance obligations was not subject to modificatio
• United States v. GIL
  604 F.2d 546· 7th Cir.· 1979-08-31 ·cited 36×
  A defendant's acquittal on grounds of entrapment does not preclude the admission of his coconspirator's statements against another defendant under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule.
• Carden v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  850 F.2d 996· 3d Cir.· 1988-06-28 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the admission of the plaintiff's testimony regarding his supervisor's statement about wanting a younger person was inadmissible double hearsay, and without this testimony, there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of intentional age discrimination,
• Cedeck v. Hamiltonian Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  551 F.2d 1136· 8th Cir.· 1977-04-01 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the plaintiff's sex discrimination claim regarding promotion was timely filed due to a continuing violation, but affirmed the trial court's finding that no discrimination occurred and that a hearsay statement was inadmissible.
• United States v. Weddell
  800 F.2d 1404· 5th Cir.· 1986-10-01 ·cited 33×
  The court affirmed Weddell's convictions but remanded Hammond's case for an evidentiary hearing regarding government misconduct.
• United States v. Scott
  511 F.2d 15· 8th Cir.· 1975-02-19 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance motions and admitting challenged evidence, affirming the conviction.