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

• Lang v. Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. & Missouri-Pacific R.R. Co.
  624 F.2d 1275· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-25 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the widow had capacity to sue after amendment and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding of negligence, but reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages due to the refusal of a jury instruction on income tax.
• Hidalgo Props., Inc. v. Wachovia Mortg. Co.
  617 F.2d 196· 10th Cir.· 1980-02-25 ·cited 45×
  The court held that a defendant cannot avoid liability for breach of contract by designating fees as non-refundable when the plaintiff seeks to recover expenses incurred in reliance on the contract. Furthermore, issues of waiver and excuse of performance due to repudiation are fo
• Cohen v. Franchard Corp.
  478 F.2d 115· 2d Cir.· 1973-04-11 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the trial court's charge on scienter was correct, and that claims regarding reliance and imputed knowledge were not preserved for appeal. The court also found no merit in claims of judicial misconduct.
• McELROY v. The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
  894 F.2d 1504· 11th Cir.· 1990-03-01 ·cited 44×
  The court held that Florida's statute of repose begins to run from the date of the manufacturer's original sale of a component part, not from its assembly into a completed product or its delivery to the ultimate consumer. The court also found no reversible error in the jury instr
• Farrar v. Cain
  756 F.2d 1148· 5th Cir.· 1985-04-08 ·cited 44×
  The court held that failure to object to jury instructions or interrogatories generally precludes appellate review, except for fundamental error, and affirmed the denial of damages except for nominal damages against one defendant.
• Crimm v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co.
  750 F.2d 703· 8th Cir.· 1984-12-19 ·cited 44×
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that while one jury instruction error occurred, it was harmless, and other alleged errors did not warrant reversal.
• Charles A. Wright, Inc. v. F. D. Rich Co.
  354 F.2d 710· 1st Cir.· 1966-01-05 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the plaintiff's general objections to jury instructions were insufficient to preserve the issue for appeal, and that the exclusion of testimony regarding a prior oral conversation was proper under the parol evidence rule.
• ROY v. Star Chopper Co., Inc.
  584 F.2d 1124· 1st Cir.· 1978-10-03 ·cited 43×
  The court affirmed the district court's rulings on choice of law, jury instructions, and evidentiary matters, finding no reversible error in the application of Rhode Island strict liability law or the handling of third-party claims.
• In re Innovative Constr. Sys., Inc.
  793 F.2d 875· 7th Cir.· 1986-06-17 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the jury's finding of trade secret misappropriation was supported by sufficient evidence, reversing the judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
• Weinar v. Rollform Inc.
  744 F.2d 797· Fed. Cir.· 1984-09-17 ·cited 42×
  The court affirmed the judgment, with the concurring judge agreeing with the outcome but not all of the majority's reasoning or discussion.
• Miller v. Premier Corp.
  608 F.2d 973· 4th Cir.· 1979-10-05 ·cited 42×
  The dissenting judge argues the case should have been an accounting in equity, not a jury trial for fraud, due to complexity and fiduciary relationship.
• United States v. Kleifgen
  557 F.2d 1293· 9th Cir.· 1977-07-20 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the jury selection process did not result in substantial underrepresentation of cognizable groups and that the embezzlement loss instruction was proper. However, the court remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether the prosecution's interview of appellant'
• Baughman v. Cooper-Jarrett, Inc.
  530 F.2d 529· 3d Cir.· 1976-02-18 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the majority improperly remolded the jury verdict to include damages outside the period instructed, violating the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.
• Stengel v. Belcher
  522 F.2d 438· 6th Cir.· 1975-09-16 ·cited 42×
  The court held that an off-duty police officer acting within the scope of his duties, even if exceeding his authority, acts under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and that the trial court did not err in admitting medical records or excluding evidence of prior
• Little v. Green
  428 F.2d 1061· 5th Cir.· 1970-06-24 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims of unseaworthiness, improper counsel statements, and confusing jury instructions were without merit, affirming the jury's verdict.
• Scott v. Isbrandtsen Co., Inc.
  327 F.2d 113· 4th Cir.· 1964-01-13 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the submission of a confusing and misleading special interrogatory deprived the plaintiff of a fair jury trial.
• Brown v. Freedman Baking Co., Inc.
  810 F.2d 6· 1st Cir.· 1987-01-26 ·cited 41×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict and damages for civil rights violations but reversed the verdict for intentional infliction of emotional distress, finding the employer's report to the unemployment agency privileged.
• Hunt v. Liberty Lobby
  720 F.2d 631· 11th Cir.· 1983-11-28 ·cited 41×
  The dissenting judge holds that the district court's jury instructions, despite containing a legally incorrect statement, do not amount to reversible error because the party failed to object at trial and the charge as a whole properly guided the jury.
• Spanish Action Comm. OF Chicago v. City OF Chicago
  766 F.2d 315· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-27 ·cited 40×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the plaintiff waived objections to jury instructions by failing to make timely and specific objections at trial and that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find individual defendants did not act with the re
• Petty v. Ideco
  761 F.2d 1146· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-03 ·cited 40×
  The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the admission of videotapes, exclusion of evidence regarding other manufacturers' designs, admission of prior convictions, or the jury instruction.
• Williams v. Thomas
  692 F.2d 1032· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-06 ·cited 40×
  The court affirmed the compensatory damages award but reversed the attorney's fees award, remanding for recalculation and holding the fees are payable by the County. The good faith defense on the § 1983 claim was not decided as recovery was affirmed on the state claim.
• Brochu v. Ortho Pharm. Corp.
  642 F.2d 652· 1st Cir.· 1981-03-03 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the jury instructions on strict liability, including design defect and failure to warn, were proper under New Hampshire law, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings on these claims and causation.
• Taylor v. Nat'l Trailer Convoy, Inc.
  433 F.2d 569· 10th Cir.· 1970-11-10 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the jury instructions, while not perfectly stylized, were not plain error and did not violate due process, and that the issue of damages was rendered moot by the jury's finding on liability.
• Lones v. Detroit
  398 F.2d 914· 6th Cir.· 1968-07-31 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court did not err in submitting the issues of the minor plaintiff's contributory negligence and the railroad's last clear chance to the jury, and that the jury instructions were adequate.
• Odessa Woods v. The Nat'l Life & Accident Ins. Co.
  347 F.2d 760· 3d Cir.· 1965-06-22 ·cited 40×
  The court held that while a directed verdict should have been granted, the failure to move for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (n.o.v.) requires a remand for a new trial.
• 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
• Hewitt v. City OF Truth OR Consequences
  758 F.2d 1375· 10th Cir.· 1985-04-04 ·cited 38×
  The court held that ordinary negligence can support a § 1983 suit, but the facts presented could also support a finding of gross negligence or wanton conduct.
• Wilfredo Acosta v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
  717 F.2d 828· 3d Cir.· 1983-09-21 ·cited 38×
  Punitive damages may be awarded in strict products liability cases under Virgin Islands law, but require proof of outrageous conduct by clear and convincing evidence.
• Exxon Corp. v. Exxene Corp.
  696 F.2d 544· 7th Cir.· 1982-12-30 ·cited 37×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of Exxon's complaint but vacated the judgment on Exxene's counterclaim, remanding for a new trial on the counterclaim.
• Maddox v. The City OF LOS Angeles
  792 F.2d 1408· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-26 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding due process, deliberate indifference, CPR, negligence per se, and the admissibility of evidence were not erroneous, and therefore affirmed the jury's verdict for the defendants.
• Ellis v. City OF Chicago
  667 F.2d 606· 7th Cir.· 1981-12-15 ·cited 36×
  The court held that plaintiffs' failure to object to a jury instruction in the district court precludes appellate review, and that evidentiary rulings and the refusal to allow leading questions on direct examination did not constitute reversible error absent a showing of prejudic
• Warnie Lee IVY v. Sec. Barge Lines, Inc.
  585 F.2d 732· 5th Cir.· 1978-12-04 ·cited 36×
  Damages for nonpecuniary losses, such as loss of society, are not recoverable in a Jones Act suit for death occurring within U.S. territorial waters, and a jury instruction on discounting future damages to present value must be timely requested.
• Luster v. Retail Credit Co.
  575 F.2d 609· 8th Cir.· 1978-04-11 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the defendant could be liable for reasonably foreseeable republications of a defamatory report, but reversed the award of punitive damages due to lack of evidence of actual malice.
• Mrs. Camille F. Lind v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  374 F.2d 377· 5th Cir.· 1967-03-15 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial judge erred by failing to provide adequate jury instructions on the applicable Louisiana law regarding automobile intersectional collisions.
• Boeing Airplane Co. v. O'Malley
  329 F.2d 585· 8th Cir.· 1964-03-25 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court correctly determined as a matter of law that an implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose existed under the 1954 Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code and that the attempted disclaimer in the contract was ineffective.
• Pettus v. Grace Line, Inc.
  305 F.2d 151· 2d Cir.· 1962-06-27 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court's jury charge was erroneous because it failed to instruct the jury that the provision of defective winches could affect the shipowner's right to recover over from the stevedoring companies for breach of warranty.
• Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Felgenhauer
  168 F.2d 12· 8th Cir.· 1948-05-19 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict for the plaintiff, and that the trial court did not err in its rulings on evidence or jury instructions.
• Mill Owners Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Kelly
  141 F.2d 763· 8th Cir.· 1944-04-07 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a directed verdict for the defendant was proper because the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to link the defendant to the installation, maintenance, or operation of the faulty stove, and that appellate review of jury instructions was precluded b
• Iervolino v. DELTA AIR Lines, Inc.
  796 F.2d 1408· 11th Cir.· 1986-08-15 ·cited 34×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority opinion erred in its summary disposition of evidentiary issues and jury instructions, and that these errors warrant a new trial.
• Kramas v. Sec. GAS & OIL Inc.
  672 F.2d 766· 9th Cir.· 1982-03-26 ·cited 34×
  The court held that erroneous jury instructions on materiality for federal securities claims require reversal, but affirmed the dismissal of other claims and the judgment for breach of fiduciary duty.
• Williams v. The City OF NEW York
  508 F.2d 356· 2d Cir.· 1974-11-01 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the City's petition for rehearing was denied because the prior decision correctly applied New York law regarding 'undue means' in malicious prosecution claims.
• Hargrave v. Wellman
  276 F.2d 948· 9th Cir.· 1960-02-25 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury on assumption of risk, in refusing a bailment instruction, or in denying a motion to amend the complaint.
• Else E. Callwood v. Callwood
  233 F.2d 784· 3d Cir.· 1956-06-04 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a partition of property between a surviving spouse and an heir, derived from a joint will, does not constitute a 'sale' or 'mortgage' requiring the consent of a testamentary guardian as specified in the will.
• Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Botts
  173 F.2d 164· 8th Cir.· 1949-03-14 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the jury could reasonably find a violation of the Boiler Inspection Act based on projecting bolts on a locomotive's footboard, and that the company's failure to raise the interstate commerce issue properly precluded its appeal on that ground.
• Alphamed Pharms. Corp. v. Arriva Pharms., Inc.
  432 F. Supp. 2d 1319· S.D. Fla.· 2006-05-26 ·cited 33×
  The court granted defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law and new trial, vacating the jury's verdict because the plaintiff failed to present legally sufficient evidence linking the defendants' conduct to any damages.
• Jordan v. United States Lines, Inc.
  738 F.2d 48· 1st Cir.· 1984-07-05 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the jury's finding of no unseaworthiness was reasonable and that the plaintiff failed to properly preserve his objections to the jury instructions.
• Hegger v. Green
  646 F.2d 22· 2d Cir.· 1981-03-12 ·cited 33×
  The court should reverse the judgment against Dr. Green and remand for a new trial on valid claims, as increasing his liability based on impermissible grounds is unjust.
• Mrs. David B. Wallace, Sr. v. Ener
  521 F.2d 215· 5th Cir.· 1975-10-20 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions or evidentiary rulings, and that the appellants' contentions were without merit.
• Fulton v. Chicago
  481 F.2d 326· 8th Cir.· 1973-04-27 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the jury instruction regarding party responsibilities for loading machinery was substantially correct and did not warrant reversal.
• McGRATH v. Carlo Spirito, Jr.
  733 F.2d 967· 1st Cir.· 1984-05-02 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the defendant waived his objections to jury instructions by failing to properly object after the charge, and that the given instruction was not plain error.