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

• Adele L. Rand v. Underwriters AT Lloyd's
  295 F.2d 342· 2d Cir.· 1961-10-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the notice provision in the livestock mortality insurance policies should be strictly enforced, and the delay in providing notice constituted a breach of condition as a matter of law.
• Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Adams
  292 F.2d 153· 5th Cir.· 1961-06-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant railroad failed to conclusively exculpate itself from negligence, and thus the trial court did not err in denying motions for a directed verdict, judgment n.o.v., or a new trial.
• Arrie Garland v. Material Serv. Corp.
  291 F.2d 861· 7th Cir.· 1961-06-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion regarding final argument time and did not commit reversible error in its handling of jury instructions under Rule 51, nor in the substance of the jury charge itself.
• Benedict DI Bari v. Fish Transp. Co., Inc.
  275 F.2d 280· 2d Cir.· 1960-02-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in failing to properly charge the jury on the doctrine of imputed negligence under New York law, requiring reversal as to one plaintiff.
• Wabash R.R. Co. v. Zirzow
  245 F.2d 790· 7th Cir.· 1957-06-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions, while not using the exact language of tendered instructions, adequately presented the applicable law and did not constitute reversible error.
• Hrabak v. Madison GAS & Elec. Co.
  240 F.2d 472· 7th Cir.· 1957-01-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in its jury instructions regarding the Wisconsin Safe Place Statute, particularly concerning the distinction between assumption of risk and contributory negligence, and the non-delegable duty of the owner. The erroneous instructions were
• Wantland v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co.
  237 F.2d 921· 7th Cir.· 1956-11-06 ·cited 2×·via Rule 51
  The court held that the trial court committed prejudicial error by instructing the jury on damages for elements that the plaintiff had waived, and that the defendant's objection to another instruction was not properly preserved.
• Howard v. Cincinnati Sheet Metal & Roofing Co., Inc.
  234 F.2d 233· 7th Cir.· 1956-06-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court committed prejudicial error by giving an excessive number of voluminous and repetitious jury instructions that unduly emphasized the defendant's theory of the case.
• Maloney v. Tunnell
  218 F.2d 705· 3d Cir.· 1955-01-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial judge's instructions and conduct did not constitute reversible error, and there was no evidence of jury coercion.
• Simmons v. W. Assur. Co.
  205 F.2d 815· 5th Cir.· 1953-06-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in failing to submit the issue of estoppel in pais to the jury, as there was substantial evidence to support Simmons' claim that he relied on the telegram to his detriment.
• Garland v. Lane-Wells Co.
  185 F.2d 857· 5th Cir.· 1950-12-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of unavoidable accident and that the appellants waived their right to object to the jury instructions by failing to do so at trial.
• ST. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Willingham
  177 F.2d 167· 8th Cir.· 1949-10-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict based on the doctrine of discovered peril, and that the appellant waived any error regarding jury instructions by failing to object.
• Colley v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J.
  157 F.2d 1007· 4th Cir.· 1946-11-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff waived objections to the jury charge by failing to object before the jury retired, and that any errors regarding the admission or exclusion of photographs were not prejudicial.
• Bomeisler v. M. Jacobson & Sons Tr.
  118 F.2d 261· 1st Cir.· 1941-03-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the futures contracts were valid and enforceable against the trust because the trustees' actions were ratified by knowledge and acquiescence, and the transactions were within the scope of the business trust's powers.
• Hafner v. Brown
  983 F.2d 570· 4th Cir.· 1992-12-22 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the district judge did not err in giving supplemental jury instructions and allowing redeliberation, nor in restricting cross-examination, nor in instructing the jury on conspiracy, and that the substantive due process instruction error was not preserved for a
• Larez v. City OF LOS Angeles
  946 F.2d 630· 9th Cir.· 1991-09-27 ·cited 1×
  The court affirmed the denial of a new trial for the six officers but reversed and remanded for a new trial against Chief Gates and the City due to the erroneous admission of hearsay evidence.
• Hendricks v. Coughlin
  942 F.2d 109· 2d Cir.· 1991-08-07 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the magistrate's jury instructions were incomplete regarding the standard of liability for a failure-to-protect claim under the Eighth Amendment, necessitating a new trial.
• Filotei v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp.
  187 F.2d 485· 3d Cir.· 1951-02-23 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the defendant preserved the alleged error regarding jury instructions on causation and affirmed the judgment.
• Ward v. M/Y Utopia IV
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-09-15
  Crew members of the yacht Utopia IV brought claims against the vessel and its operator for injuries sustained in a 2021 collision and subsequent incidents, seeking damages for failure to provide maintenance and cure, Jones Act negligence, and unseaworthiness. The district court g
• Lawson v. The Kroger Co.
  997 F.2d 214· 6th Cir.· 1993-07-06
  There is no cause of action for negligent malicious prosecution under Tennessee law; a malicious prosecution claim requires proof of malice and lack of probable cause, not mere negligence.
• Romano v. Howarth
  998 F.2d 101· 2d Cir.· 1993-07-02
  The court held that the special interrogatories submitted to the jury inaccurately framed the issues and that the admission of the progress notes was improper hearsay.
• Stachniak v. Hayes
  989 F.2d 914· 7th Cir.· 1993-03-19
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the jury instructions or the denial of a new trial motion.
• Glover v. The BIC Corp.
  987 F.2d 1410· 9th Cir.· 1993-02-26
  An adequate warning does not preclude strict liability for a manufacturing defect, and a manufacturer owes a duty of care to product users. Spoliation of evidence requires bad faith to warrant exclusion.
• Fink v. Foley-Belsaw Co.
  983 F.2d 111· 8th Cir.· 1993-01-05
  The court held that the district court did not err in its jury instructions, in denying a new trial based on defense counsel's statements, or in denying a new trial because the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
• Campbell v. Bartlett
  975 F.2d 1569· 10th Cir.· 1992-10-06
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that service by posting at the sister's residence was valid and satisfied due process, and that the ICC endorsement negated the insurer's cooperation defense.
• R.L. Dillon v. Gen. Cas. Co. OF Wis.
  975 F.2d 522· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-16
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict, holding that emotional distress damages are not recoverable for negligent misrepresentation under Iowa law and that the evidence did not support punitive damages.
• Harrell v. DCS Equip. Leasing Corp.
  951 F.2d 1453· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-30
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting aside default judgments, revising a partial summary judgment, directing a verdict for certain defendants, or in its jury instructions and evidentiary rulings.
• Mattson v. Brown Univ.
  925 F.2d 529· 1st Cir.· 1991-02-12
  The court held that the plaintiff's appeal on the merits was without basis due to a failure to properly object to jury instructions, but that the defendant's bill of costs was untimely.
• Vicknair v. Sears
  857 F.2d 247· 5th Cir.· 1988-08-11
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in granting a partial directed verdict on the attractive nuisance and strict liability claims, and that the jury charge issue was not preserved for appeal.
• Thurman Lewis v. Robert Cooper & Richard Mulherin
  771 F.2d 334· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-03
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict that the prison guards were deliberately indifferent to the inmate's serious medical needs, and that any defects in the jury charge were waived.
• Dorsula Lewis v. Millsaps Coll.
  759 F.2d 1239· 5th Cir.· 1985-05-13
  The court held that a minor, unobjected-to error in jury instructions, which was corrected by subsequent instructions and unlikely to have misled the jury, does not warrant reversal under the plain error doctrine.
• B.L. McTEAGUE & Co., Inc. v. Martin Copeland Co.
  753 F.2d 168· 1st Cir.· 1985-01-24
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a new trial because the jury instructions were appropriate and the appellant failed to object to them.
• Matco Mach. & Tool Co. v. Cincinnati Milacron Co.
  727 F.2d 777· 8th Cir.· 1984-05-09
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the district court's jury instructions, while not perfectly precise in all aspects, did not constitute reversible error, and any unpreserved errors did not rise to the level of plain error.
• Baroco v. Araserv, Inc.
  621 F.2d 189· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-11
• The Guardian Life Ins. Co. OF Am. v. Robitaille
  495 F.2d 890· 2d Cir.· 1974-04-04
  The dissenting judge believes the jury's verdict in favor of the insured was unconscionable and should be set aside due to material misrepresentations in the insurance application that increased the risk of loss.
• Harp v. The Kroger Co.
  489 F.2d 1104· 6th Cir.· 1974-01-15
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the jury's verdict or the trial court's rulings.
• Greene v. Moncks Corner Motor Co. & Ford Motor Co.
  457 F.2d 735· 4th Cir.· 1972-02-29
  The court held that the jury instruction on intervening cause was misleading and prejudicial, requiring a new trial.
• Kinney v. Glass
  418 F.2d 1262· 3d Cir.· 1969-11-20
  The court held that the trial judge's jury instructions were sufficient and that the jury had a reasonable basis to apportion damages, affirming the judgment.
• T. C. Allen Constr. Co. v. Stratford Corp.
  384 F.2d 653· 4th Cir.· 1967-10-12
  The court held that the trial court erred in failing to award interest on the jury's verdict from the date of substantial performance, but affirmed the admission of evidence regarding repair costs and the jury's measure of damages.
• POE v. Emge
  381 F.2d 11· 6th Cir.· 1967-07-27
  The court held that the jury's award of $25,000 was not excessive and that the jury instructions, when read in context, properly allowed for damages related to permanent injury and future loss of earnings, not solely disfigurement.
• Nityananda Pati v. Newman
  335 F.2d 544· 4th Cir.· 1964-08-10
  The court held that the jury's finding of contributory negligence was supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions.
• Reiner v. Bankers Sec. Corp.
  305 F.2d 189· 3d Cir.· 1962-06-28
  The court held that the jury's special verdict answers were not inconsistent and that the trial court did not err in its submission of the case or its instructions on causation.
• Susmann v. Tullar
  276 F.2d 899· 2d Cir.· 1960-03-30
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence of wanton misconduct to submit the case to the jury and that the trial court did not err in admitting testimony of a guilty plea or in its jury instructions.
• Woodington v. The Pa. R.R. Co. & S. J. Groves & Sons Co., Inc.
  236 F.2d 760· 2d Cir.· 1956-08-22
  The court held that the trial judge's jury instruction regarding the railroad's duty to operate trains at speeds allowing them to stop within the operator's vision was potentially erroneous and required reversal.
• Nat'l Sur. Corp. v. Bell
  216 F.2d 806· 5th Cir.· 1954-11-24
  The court held that a potentially misleading jury instruction on partial incapacity was not grounds for reversal because the overall charge and verdict forms clarified the issue for the jury.
• Smith v. GAY
  190 F.2d 719· 4th Cir.· 1951-07-17
  The court held that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the doctrine of last clear chance in the mother's case, requiring a new trial.