Fed. R. Civ. P. 51

533 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 16 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Hobson v. Wilson
  737 F.2d 1· D.C. Cir.· 1984-06-08 ·cited 237×·via Rule 51
  The court held that the District of Columbia and its employees can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), and that certain claims against FBI defendants were barred by the statute of limitations, while others against MPD defendants and the District lacked sufficient evidence.
• Dr. Robert E. Whiting, Ph.D. v. Jackson State Univ. & John A. Peoples
  616 F.2d 116· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-28 ·cited 203×
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding of racial discrimination, affirming the award of back pay, interest, and costs, but remanded the attorney fee award for lack of articulated reasoning.
• 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.
• Solomon Dehydrating Co. v. Guyton
  294 F.2d 439· 8th Cir.· 1961-07-19 ·cited 138×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting negligence questions to the jury, excluding expert testimony based on an unsupported assumption, instructing on the right-of-way line, or in refusing to set aside the verdict as excessive, and that the failure to instr
• Dunn v. ST. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
  370 F.2d 681· 10th Cir.· 1966-12-12 ·cited 102×
  The court held that the jury instructions were not inconsistent and that the admission of the highway officer's testimony was not prejudicial error, thus affirming the jury's verdict.
• McNELLO v. John B. Kelly, Inc.
  283 F.2d 96· 3d Cir.· 1960-09-15 ·cited 102×
  The court held that the trial judge's jury instructions on negligence were fundamentally flawed and constituted reversible error, despite the defendant's failure to object. The court also affirmed the dismissal of a third-party claim.
• Troupe v. Chicago
  234 F.2d 253· 2d Cir.· 1956-06-01 ·cited 102×
  An obviously erroneous jury instruction on a material matter, even if not properly preserved, warrants appellate review.
• Barnett v. The Hous. Auth. OF the City OF Atlanta
  707 F.2d 1571· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-27 ·cited 96×
  The court held that the Atlanta Housing Authority violated Robert Barnett's due process rights by terminating him without cause and without a proper post-termination hearing, and that the Authority waived its claim of immunity from punitive damages due to procedural default.
• Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Black Hills v. Hubbard
  203 F.2d 859· 8th Cir.· 1953-04-27 ·cited 96×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendants' motion for a directed verdict, as there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find the driver negligent.
• Jackson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. & Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.
  781 F.2d 394· 5th Cir.· 1986-01-22 ·cited 92×
  A plaintiff in a strict liability action can recover punitive damages, and punitive damages are available in mass tort cases under Mississippi law.
• Scheib v. Williams-McWILLIAMS Co., Inc.
  628 F.2d 509· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-22 ·cited 92×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain evidence or in its jury instructions, and the jury verdict was supported by evidence.
• Parrett v. City OF Connersville
  737 F.2d 690· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-21 ·cited 91×
  The court held that while a collective bargaining agreement's grievance procedure can satisfy due process, it failed to do so in this case due to administrative delays and limitations, and that defendants waived their right to appeal errors in jury instructions by failing to obje
• Thor C. Laugesen v. The Anaconda Co.
  510 F.2d 307· 6th Cir.· 1975-01-10 ·cited 87×
  The court held that jury instructions must make it clear that an employee can recover for age discrimination even if other factors contributed to the discharge, as long as age was a factor that made a difference.
• BIG Horn Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co.
  852 F.2d 1259· 10th Cir.· 1988-07-28 ·cited 84×
  The court held that Edison's discretion to invoke section 3.01 of the coal contract was subject to an implied covenant of good faith, making evidence of Edison's oversupply situation relevant to whether it acted in good faith.
• Morris v. Travisono
  528 F.2d 856· 1st Cir.· 1976-01-22 ·cited 82×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the defendants' failure to properly object to jury instructions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 51 precluded appellate review of the substantive legal issues.
• Tose v. First Pa. Bank, N.A.
  648 F.2d 879· 3d Cir.· 1981-04-30 ·cited 78×
  The court affirmed the district court's grants of summary judgment and directed verdicts, finding no error in the disposition of antitrust and other claims, nor in the handling of contractual counterclaims.
• Nimrod v. Sylvester
  369 F.2d 870· 1st Cir.· 1966-12-21 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' failure to make timely and specific objections to jury instructions and the court's handling of jury questions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 51 precluded appellate review, and the circumstances did not warrant application of the plain error rule.
• Brown v. Avemco Inv. Corp.
  603 F.2d 1367· 9th Cir.· 1979-09-12 ·cited 76×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority opinion improperly reversed the lower court's decision by considering issues not properly raised on appeal and by disregarding the requirements of Rule 51, FRCivP, regarding timely objections to jury instructions.
• Polk v. Ford Motor Co.
  529 F.2d 259· 8th Cir.· 1976-01-09 ·cited 72×
  The Eighth Circuit held that Missouri law would recognize the "second collision" or "enhanced injury" doctrine in products liability cases, and that sufficient evidence existed to submit the case to the jury on this theory.
• Pierce v. Ramsey Winch Co.
  753 F.2d 416· 5th Cir.· 1985-02-20 ·cited 70×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict, holding that the jury instructions adequately conveyed the legal standards for Sherman Act liability and business justification, and that the evidence supported the damages award.
• McKINNON v. Skil Corp.
  638 F.2d 270· 1st Cir.· 1981-01-14 ·cited 69×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding OSHA regulations and prior accident reports, and that jury instructions were proper or not preserved for appeal.
• Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co.
  738 F.2d 1509· 10th Cir.· 1984-07-13 ·cited 67×
  The court held that the defendant's challenge to the jury instructions on the relevant market was not properly preserved for appeal and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of monopolization under the essential facilities doctrine and intent test.
• Curtis Publ'g Co. v. Butts
  351 F.2d 702· 5th Cir.· 1965-07-16 ·cited 65×
  The majority held that Curtis waived its right to challenge the verdict on constitutional grounds. The dissenting judge disagreed, arguing that the large damages constituted a prior restraint on free speech and that counsel could not have anticipated the specific holding in New Y
• Am. Fid. & Cas. Co. v. Mrs. Claire Drexler
  220 F.2d 930· 5th Cir.· 1955-04-08 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to grant a directed verdict or a new trial, and that any errors in instructions or rulings were not prejudicial.
• The Indus. Dev. Bd. OF the Town OF Section v. Fuqua Indus., Inc.
  523 F.2d 1226· 5th Cir.· 1975-11-24 ·cited 62×
  The court held that Van Heusen, having paid for the repairs, was subrogated to the Boards' claims against the contractor, and the trial court erred by instructing the jury solely on a third-party beneficiary theory.
• Chicago Great W. Ry. Co. v. Casura
  234 F.2d 441· 8th Cir.· 1956-06-07 ·cited 60×·via Rule 51
  The court held that while the judgment against both defendants is affirmed, the railway company is entitled to indemnity from Swift & Company because Swift's negligence was the primary cause of the injury.
• Kestenbaum v. Falstaff Brewing Corp.
  575 F.2d 564· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-23 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the plaintiff's proof of damages from price-fixing was legally insufficient due to speculation and reliance on an illegal conspiracy. It also found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate an anticompetitive effect from Falstaff's local advertising, bar spendi
• Haskell v. Kaman Corp.
  743 F.2d 113· 2d Cir.· 1984-08-15 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the district court erred in admitting certain prejudicial testimony and statistical evidence, requiring a new trial on the ADEA claim, but affirmed the denial of liquidated damages.
• Wells v. Hico Indep. Sch. Dist.
  736 F.2d 243· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-16 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the trial judge erred in submitting the due process liberty interest claim to the jury because there was no evidence to support it.
• Prebble v. Brodrick
  535 F.2d 605· 10th Cir.· 1976-05-10 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims against the University were barred by sovereign immunity, the Trustees were properly granted a directed verdict, and the jury instructions and verdict form were not prejudicial, thus affirming the trial court's judgment.
• Golden v. United States
  318 F.2d 357· 1st Cir.· 1963-06-18 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the trial court erred in ruling as a matter of law that the funds in the escrow account belonged to the bank, and in failing to submit the crucial factual issue of the capacity in which the defendant received the funds to the jury.
• Lewis and Carolyn Pate v. Seaboard R.R., Inc.
  819 F.2d 1074· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-23 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying a new trial based on erroneous jury instructions regarding passenger duties and the interpretation of a party's self-contradictory testimony.
• Wright v. Farmers Co-Op of Ark. & Okla.
  620 F.2d 694· 8th Cir.· 1980-05-15 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the trial court erred in giving a jury instruction regarding a defective O-ring that was unsupported by evidence, requiring reversal and remand for a new trial.
• Montgomery v. Va. Stage Lines, Inc.
  191 F.2d 770· D.C. Cir.· 1951-06-28 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the trial court erred in failing to give specific jury instructions regarding the carrier's duty to safely stow baggage, even if the plaintiff's requested instructions were not perfectly framed.
• Landry v. TWO R. Drilling Co.
  511 F.2d 138· 5th Cir.· 1975-04-09 ·cited 55×
• Wells Real Est., Inc. v. Greater Lowell Bd. OF Realtors
  850 F.2d 803· 1st Cir.· 1988-06-23 ·cited 54×
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the plaintiff failed to preserve its arguments regarding jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence, and the nature of the interstate commerce element due to procedural waivers.
• Joseph v. Brierton
  739 F.2d 1244· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-23 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the district court erred by not granting a mistrial or informing the jury of indemnification after the defense counsel's prejudicial remarks, and by giving an improper good faith immunity instruction.
• Palmer v. Miller
  145 F.2d 926· 8th Cir.· 1944-12-18 ·cited 54×
  The court held that repeating a precautionary instruction, which minimized the probative value of a key circumstance, in response to a jury's question was prejudicial error.
• Williams v. Powers
  135 F.2d 153· 6th Cir.· 1943-04-06 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that a violation of Ohio Gen. Code § 12603 (assured clear distance ahead) constituted negligence per se without also instructing on potential excuses for non-compliance.
• Roth v. Black & Decker
  737 F.2d 779· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-29 ·cited 50×
  The court held that punitive damages were improperly submitted to the jury because the evidence did not show the defendant acted with complete indifference to or conscious disregard for safety. The court affirmed the award of actual damages.
• Franklin v. J. D. Shelton and wife
  250 F.2d 92· 10th Cir.· 1957-11-07 ·cited 50×
  The court held that a lay witness can testify to observable physical injuries, but subjective conditions require medical expert testimony to establish proximate cause. The court also affirmed the trial court's discretion in matters of joinder, discovery, jury instructions, mistri
• Shokuwan Shimabukuro v. Higeyoshi Nagayama
  140 F.2d 13· D.C. Cir.· 1944-01-03 ·cited 50×
• Sweeney v. United Feature Syndicate, Inc.
  129 F.2d 904· 2d Cir.· 1942-08-03 ·cited 50×
  The court held that where the meaning of a published article is not plain, it is for the jury to determine whether the article is defamatory, and the trial court did not err in submitting this question to the jury.
• Moore v. Telfon Commc'ns Corp.
  589 F.2d 959· 9th Cir.· 1978-06-09 ·cited 48×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the counterclaim and denial of the venue motion, affirmed the denial of attorney's fees, and affirmed the jury verdict in the privacy action, but remanded the disposition of the cross-complaint due to confusion.
• Rivera v. Rederi A/B Nordstjernan
  456 F.2d 970· 1st Cir.· 1972-03-15 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to submit contributory negligence to the jury, but erred in the amount of damages awarded to one plaintiff.
• Miller v. Brazel
  300 F.2d 283· 10th Cir.· 1962-01-30 ·cited 48×
  The court held that while an instruction on contributory negligence was erroneously given, it was not reversible error given the general verdict. The court also affirmed the refusal to instruct on res ipsa loquitur as it was raised too late and factually inapplicable.
• United States v. The Heyward-Robinson Co., Inc.
  430 F.2d 1077· 2d Cir.· 1970-07-24 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the counterclaim relating to the Stelma job was not compulsory under F.R.Civ.P. 13(a) because it did not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party's claim.
• Richfield OIL Corp. v. Karseal Corp.
  271 F.2d 709· 9th Cir.· 1959-10-13 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict regarding illegal restraint and damages, and that while the jury instructions on the effect of a prior antitrust decree were technically erroneous, the error was not prejudicial.
• McDONNELL v. Timmerman
  269 F.2d 54· 8th Cir.· 1959-08-10 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting the issue of the plaintiff's negligence to the jury, nor in refusing to find the defendant negligent as a matter of law, and that the jury instructions and evidentiary rulings were proper.
• Sil-Flo v. SFHC
  917 F.2d 1507· 10th Cir.· 1990-10-30 ·cited 45×
  The court affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error in choice of law, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, discovery, or dismissal of the RICO claim.