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

• Trejo v. The Denver & RIO Grande W. R.R. Co.
  568 F.2d 181· 10th Cir.· 1977-12-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that erroneous jury instructions regarding damages, particularly the inclusion of special damages without sufficient evidence and the failure to instruct on mitigation of damages, required reversal and remand for a new trial solely on the issue of damages.
• Edward F. Cicinato, D.D.S. v. McPHEETERS
  542 F.2d 634· 4th Cir.· 1976-09-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in failing to give a specific jury instruction on a pedestrian's duty to look for traffic, nor in submitting the issue of contributory negligence to the jury.
• Strickland v. Transamerica Ins. Co.
  481 F.2d 138· 5th Cir.· 1973-07-03 ·cited 4×
  A corporate officer can be held personally liable to third parties for negligence if they knew or should have known of a specific hazard, had the authority to correct it, and failed to do so, even if the duty also runs to the corporation. Insurance exclusions for workers' compens
• Mrs. Myrtle H. Trawick v. The Manhattan Life Ins. Co. OF NEW York
  484 F.2d 535· 5th Cir.· 1973-06-18 ·cited 4×
• Patton v. Guyer
  443 F.2d 79· 10th Cir.· 1971-04-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting the issue of probable cause to the jury, allowing the amendment of the complaint, and in its instructions regarding disclosure to legal authorities, but reversed the judgment against one partner due to insufficient evi
• Melton v. O. F. Shearer & Sons, Inc.
  436 F.2d 22· 6th Cir.· 1970-12-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge erred in refusing to allow plaintiff to cross-examine and impeach the towboat pilot as a hostile witness or adverse party, and in excluding expert testimony based on the pilot's deposition.
• Stevenson v. United States
  378 F.2d 354· 2d Cir.· 1967-06-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding post-accumulation tax savings was proper, and the failure to object to the jury charge waived appellate review of alleged misstatements.
• Logan v. Empresa Lineas Maritimas Argentinas
  353 F.2d 373· 1st Cir.· 1965-12-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to rule as a matter of law that the vessel was unseaworthy, nor in its jury instructions or rulings on witness testimony, and that the appellant was not denied a fair trial.
• Powers v. J. B. Michael & Co., Inc.
  329 F.2d 674· 6th Cir.· 1964-04-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the contractor had a duty to warn of a foreseeable danger on the highway, even if outside the contracted work area, and that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of prior accidents or in its questioning of a witness.
• LiMANDRI v. Brasileiro
  316 F.2d 3· 2d Cir.· 1963-04-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim that maritime law should have applied was untimely as the case was tried on ordinary negligence without objection.
• Illingworth v. Indus. Molasses Corp.
  272 F.2d 845· 8th Cir.· 1959-12-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in its instructions or rulings on evidence, and affirmed the judgment.
• Cosmo Ostapenko v. Am. Bridge Div. OF United States Steel Corp.
  267 F.2d 204· 2d Cir.· 1959-05-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the defendant's statutory duty under the Labor Law, nor in submitting the issue of contributory negligence to the jury.
• Hardigg v. Inglett
  250 F.2d 895· 4th Cir.· 1957-12-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's decedent was not contributorily negligent as a matter of law, and the trial court did not commit reversible error in its handling of jury instructions.
• Gardner v. Darling Stores Corp.
  242 F.2d 3· 2d Cir.· 1957-02-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant waived objections to the building permit's adequacy and breached the lease by failing to build, pay rent, and contribute to party wall repairs, and that the prior Ohio action did not bar this suit.
• Sol C. Thomas v. Union Ry. Co.
  216 F.2d 18· 6th Cir.· 1954-10-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an instruction charging the employee with assumption of risk based on obvious danger was reversible error under the Federal Employers' Liability Act.
• Int'l Harvester Co. v. Sharoff
  202 F.2d 52· 10th Cir.· 1953-02-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence of negligence and that the driver's contributory negligence was a jury question, and that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence or refusing instructions.
• Lloyd v. Thomas
  195 F.2d 486· 7th Cir.· 1952-03-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendants' general objections to jury instructions were insufficient to preserve issues for review and that the trial court properly denied motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial.
• United States v. 425
  187 F.2d 798· 3d Cir.· 1951-03-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the value of trade fixtures is not compensable separately from the leasehold value when a complete leasehold is taken, and that a jury instruction request was procedurally barred and substantively incorrect.
• Cent. Dispensary & Emergency Hosp., Inc. v. Harbaugh
  174 F.2d 507· D.C. Cir.· 1949-04-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court erred in its jury instructions regarding proximate cause and the limitation of damages.
• Shevlin-Hixon Co. v. Smith
  165 F.2d 170· 9th Cir.· 1947-12-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the plaintiff's employment and the specific act of jumping into the pit were inherently dangerous under the Oregon Employers' Liability Act, and that the employer was negligent.
• Crockett Eng'g Co. v. Ehret Magnesia MFG. Co.
  156 F.2d 817· D.C. Cir.· 1946-06-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instructions were adequate and that the evidence supported the verdict, affirming the judgment for the defendant.
• Grand River Dam Auth. v. Thompson
  118 F.2d 242· 10th Cir.· 1941-03-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting the question of whether land constituted a single unit to the jury, nor in failing to instruct on separate verdicts when no exceptions were properly saved.
• Gray v. Giant Wholesale Corp.
  758 F.2d 1000· 4th Cir.· 1985-04-04 ·cited 3×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the creditor had a perfected security interest, did not receive voidable preferential transfers, and was not subject to bulk transfer provisions, and that the sale of repossessed collateral was commercially reasonable
• Marlin E. "Bill" Jones v. Rich Thompson
  974 F.2d 86· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence or refusing jury instructions, and affirmed the judgment.
• Bissett v. Burlington N. R.R. Co.
  969 F.2d 727· 8th Cir.· 1992-07-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in bifurcating the trial, admitting or excluding evidence, instructing the jury on foreseeability, or denying motions for a new trial.
• Jones v. Lewis
  957 F.2d 260· 6th Cir.· 1992-02-25 ·cited 2×
  The district court did not exceed the scope of the appellate mandate by submitting the issue of consent to the jury, and the appellant failed to preserve issues regarding jury instructions and sufficiency of evidence for appellate review.
• Stanley Woodbridge (90-3574) v. Dahlberg
  954 F.2d 1231· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that appellants failed to preserve their objection to the jury instruction on supervisory liability by not clearly raising it with the trial court, and the instruction did not constitute plain error.
• Abercrombie v. Osteopathic Hosp. Founders Ass'n
  950 F.2d 676· 10th Cir.· 1991-12-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the jury instructions contained errors regarding the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (COBRA), the jury's answers to special interrogatories cured these errors, leading to an affirmance of the judgment for the defendants.
• Jerlyn Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Wayne R. Roman Yacht Brokerage
  950 F.2d 60· 1st Cir.· 1991-12-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to adequately instruct the jury on a broker's fiduciary duties regarding secret profits and disclosure of material facts, requiring a new trial.
• Lash v. Cutts
  943 F.2d 147· 1st Cir.· 1991-09-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury instruction regarding imputation of parental negligence was a permissible statement of Maine law, and the erroneous 'rule of the road' instruction did not constitute plain error because no timely objection was made.
• Kavanaugh v. Greenlee Tool Co.
  944 F.2d 7· 1st Cir.· 1991-08-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that jury answers to questions they were instructed not to answer are irrelevant and can be disregarded if initial answers are clear and dispositive. The court also held that plaintiffs waived their right to appeal issues not properly preserved below.
• Acoustical Design, Inc. v. Control Elecs. Co., Inc.
  932 F.2d 939· Fed. Cir.· 1991-05-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a judgment based on a jury verdict will not be vacated for a new trial when no motions for directed verdict, JNOV, or new trial were made, absent a demonstration of prejudicial legal error.
• Deadwyler v. Volkswagen OF Am.
  884 F.2d 779· 4th Cir.· 1989-09-05 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the judgment for Volkswagen on the merits but remanded for the trial court to consider Volkswagen's request for attorney's fees and sanctions, finding the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to consider the request.
• The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. U.S. Gypsum Co.
  882 F.2d 335· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-16 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the plaintiff waived objections to the verdict form and that the exclusion of expert testimony was proper.
• Phillips v. Parke
  869 F.2d 407· 8th Cir.· 1989-03-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff waived his objection to the jury instruction on intervening cause by failing to object before the jury retired, and the instruction, when read with another instruction, was a correct statement of law and did not constitute plain error. The court
• Hicks v. SIX Flags Over Mid-America
  821 F.2d 1311· 8th Cir.· 1987-06-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions, exclusion of evidence, or denial of a motion for relief from judgment.
• Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Teddye Costello
  799 F.2d 412· 8th Cir.· 1986-08-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court properly granted summary judgment on the emotional distress claim and did not err in refusing to take judicial notice of insurance regulations, as the insured failed to demonstrate extreme and outrageous conduct or preserve the instructional is
• Tandy Brands, Inc. v. Harper
  760 F.2d 648· 5th Cir.· 1985-05-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the covenant not to compete was overbroad in its territorial scope and thus unenforceable for damages, but affirmed the dismissal of Harper's counterclaim for tortious interference with contract due to waiver.
• Wolk v. Churchill
  696 F.2d 621· 8th Cir.· 1982-12-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury instruction on the fraud counterclaim contained an erroneous standard of intent for promises of future action, potentially affecting damages.
• Bestway Equip. Servs., Inc. v. Berwind Lines, Inc.
  655 F.2d 440· 1st Cir.· 1981-07-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Bestway waived its parol evidence rule argument by failing to raise it in the district court and affirmed the jury's verdict on all claims.
• Riley v. Univ. OF Lowell
  651 F.2d 822· 1st Cir.· 1981-06-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or in its conduct, and that the jury verdict for the defendants was proper.
• Sec. State Bank v. Baty
  439 F.2d 910· 10th Cir.· 1971-03-22 ·cited 2×
  A bank that cashes checks in good faith, after verifying their validity with the drawee bank, is a holder in due course even if the maker later stops payment due to a failed underlying transaction.
• Abelous Mayeaux and Whitney J. Roussell v. Am. Mut. Liab. Ins. Corp.
  409 F.2d 508· 5th Cir.· 1969-04-14 ·cited 2×·via Rule 51
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain evidence and admitting other testimony.
• Cont'l OIL Co. v. Brack
  381 F.2d 682· 10th Cir.· 1967-08-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in instructing the jury on the Oil Conservation Commission's Rule 114(a) because the rule was intended for safety and the appellant failed to preserve the alleged error for review.
• Gibson v. Erie-Lackawanna R.R. Co.
  378 F.2d 476· 6th Cir.· 1967-06-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial judge's argumentative and critical remarks to the jury, particularly concerning the presence of the decedent's children and the introduction of irrelevant 'passenger train' evidence, constituted prejudicial error requiring a new trial.
• Selh v. Moore-McCORMACK Lines, Inc.
  362 F.2d 541· 2d Cir.· 1966-06-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting the maintenance and cure issue to the jury, and that new theories not presented below cannot be raised on appeal.
• Goss v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co.
  355 F.2d 649· 3d Cir.· 1966-01-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court properly refused to instruct the jury on willful and wanton negligence because the engineer lacked sufficient time and opportunity to discover the decedent's peril and avoid the accident.
• Haynes v. Coolidge
  336 F.2d 736· D.C. Cir.· 1964-03-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in failing to explicitly instruct the jury that a passenger is not barred from recovery by the driver's contributory negligence.
• Buster Rogers v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co.
  325 F.2d 134· 6th Cir.· 1963-12-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in taking certain negligence claims from the jury and that procedural objections were not properly preserved for appeal.
• Petty v. Porter
  322 F.2d 308· 6th Cir.· 1963-09-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in refusing the requested jury instruction, admitting testimony about prior brake defects, or denying the oral motion for instructions.