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

• Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. Star City Gravel Co., Inc.
  592 F.2d 455· 8th Cir.· 1979-02-12 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the denial of indemnity and costs, holding that the railroad waived its indemnity claim by failing to request proper jury instructions and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying costs.
• Taylor v. The Denver & RIO Grande W. R.R. Co.
  438 F.2d 351· 10th Cir.· 1971-02-26 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court erred in instructing the jury to reduce future pain and suffering damages to present value, and that the objection made was sufficient.
• Celanese Corp. OF Am. & Fed. Ins. Co. v. Vandalia Warehouse Corp.
  424 F.2d 1176· 7th Cir.· 1970-04-15 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the erroneous admission of an unauthenticated weather report and the lack of a proper jury instruction on the burden of proof warranted reversal and remand for a new trial.
• Chiodo v. Gen. Waterworks Corp.
  380 F.2d 860· 10th Cir.· 1967-07-03 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' objections to jury instructions were insufficient to preserve the issue for appeal, and that the rescission claim was properly dismissed for failure to join an indispensable party and for election of remedies. The statute of limitations also ba
• Kirkendoll v. Neustrom
  379 F.2d 694· 10th Cir.· 1967-06-15 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence, refusing to submit a wanton negligence claim, or in its jury instructions, and that the jury's findings were not irreconcilably inconsistent.
• The Sill Corp. v. United States
  343 F.2d 411· 10th Cir.· 1965-03-04 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in allowing the jury to consider capitalization of net income both before and after debt service, nor in admitting evidence of comparable sales for determining the capitalization rate, nor in allowing the jury to consider the replac
• Trans-World Mfg. Corp. v. AL Nyman & Sons, Inc.
  750 F.2d 1552· Fed. Cir.· 1984-12-20 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the '497 patent was invalid due to obviousness, but the '099 patent was valid and infringed, overturning the jury's finding of invalidity for the latter.
• Robinson v. Heilman
  563 F.2d 1304· 9th Cir.· 1977-10-31 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the defendant's failure to except to a jury instruction on negligence did not prevent him from raising the issue on appeal after Hochfelder, and that Hochfelder's scienter requirement applies to direct participants in securities transactions.
• Corriz v. Emilio Naranjo
  667 F.2d 892· 10th Cir.· 1981-12-09 ·cited 30×
  The court held that defendants' objections regarding potential double recovery were not properly preserved for appeal because they failed to make specific objections to the jury instructions or verdict forms as required by Rule 51.
• United Roasters, Inc. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.
  649 F.2d 985· 4th Cir.· 1981-05-18 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that while Colgate breached its contract by ceasing performance before the termination date, its actions did not constitute an unfair or deceptive practice under N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1, thus precluding treble damages.
• Fact Concerts, Inc. v. The City OF Newport
  626 F.2d 1060· 1st Cir.· 1980-06-17 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying defendants' motions, allowing certain cross-examination, or instructing the jury on punitive damages against the City, affirming the jury's verdict.
• Patton v. Archer
  590 F.2d 1319· 5th Cir.· 1979-03-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that while the jury's award of damages for breach of contract was supported by sufficient evidence and proper jury instructions, the award of attorneys' fees was improper under Texas law as the claim was based on express contracts, not a sworn account.
• Herman v. Hess OIL Virgin Islands Corp. & Chicago Bridge & Iron Corp. (D.C. Civil Action No. 222-1972)
  524 F.2d 767· 3d Cir.· 1975-09-23 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict, finding no reversible error in the admission of evidence, counsel's remarks, or jury instructions, and upholding the exoneration of Hess and the finding of liability against CB & I.
• Hageman v. Signal L. P. GAS, Inc.
  486 F.2d 479· 6th Cir.· 1973-10-31 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the amendment to include the pain and suffering claim related back to the original filing, and that the settlement with a co-defendant did not fully preclude the plaintiff's wrongful death claim against the appellant, but remanded for allocation of settlement
• Wyman C. Lowe v. Taylor Steel Prods. Co.
  373 F.2d 65· 8th Cir.· 1967-02-23 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the jury verdict, holding that the plaintiff failed to properly preserve his alleged errors on appeal due to insufficient objections and that the exclusion of expert testimony was not prejudicial.
• Filipek v. Moore-McCORMACK Lines, Inc.
  258 F.2d 734· 2d Cir.· 1958-08-11 ·cited 30×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the lower court's decision and reinstate the jury's verdict.
• Doucet v. Gulf OIL Corp.
  783 F.2d 518· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-20 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the borrowed-employee doctrine remains a defense under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, but reversed the judgment due to an erroneous jury instruction that suggested the oil company would pay compensation if the worker was a borrowed em
• Allen Organ Co. v. Kimball Int'l, Inc.
  839 F.2d 1556· Fed. Cir.· 1988-02-12 ·cited 28×
  The court held that Allen Organ waived its objections to the jury instructions and interrogatories due to failure to raise them before the jury was discharged, and that the jury's answers were reconcilable, supporting the judgment of patent invalidity.
• Deep Aggarwal v. Ponce Sch. OF Med.
  837 F.2d 17· 1st Cir.· 1988-01-19 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, nor did the judge's conduct deprive the plaintiff of a fair trial.
• Lange v. Schultz
  627 F.2d 122· 8th Cir.· 1980-07-30 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to quash the jury panel, failing to object sua sponte to closing arguments, or in its jury instructions, and that the jury verdict was supported by sufficient evidence.
• Ward King v. Laborers Int'l Union OF N. Am.
  443 F.2d 273· 6th Cir.· 1971-05-13 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court did not commit plain error by instructing the jury that a violation of the Fair Employment Act required an intentional pattern and practice of discrimination, as this instruction was consistent with the plaintiff's pleaded cause of action.
• Ames Nowell v. Dick
  413 F.2d 1204· 5th Cir.· 1969-08-04 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the jury's award of attorney fees was not excessive and that the trial court's jury instructions and procedural rulings were proper.
• Cmty. Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Parker Square Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  406 F.2d 603· 10th Cir.· 1969-01-29 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial, denying a continuance, or proceeding without a second pretrial hearing, and that objections to jury instructions were procedurally barred.
• Janel Sales Corp. v. Lanvin Parfums
  396 F.2d 398· 2d Cir.· 1968-06-05 ·cited 28×
  The court held that whether Lanvin's accommodation sales made it a retailer, and whether Lanvin and plaintiffs were in competition, were questions of fact for the jury.
• Andrews v. Olin Mathieson Chem. Corp.
  334 F.2d 422· 8th Cir.· 1964-07-23 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its procedural rulings, jury instructions, or evidentiary exclusions, affirming the jury's verdict.
• Luther v. Forrest E. Maple and Donna Maple
  250 F.2d 916· 8th Cir.· 1958-01-10 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court's dismissal of Ruth Hafner's counterclaim was error, entitling her estate to a trial, but affirmed the judgment for plaintiffs against L. G. Hafner's estate.
• Moore v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., Inc.
  223 F.2d 214· 5th Cir.· 1955-06-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that plaintiffs' claims of error were without merit, either because the issues were properly submitted to the jury, the alleged errors were not preserved, or the errors, if any, were harmless.
• O'Malley v. Cover
  221 F.2d 156· 8th Cir.· 1955-04-05 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the defendant waived its right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence by failing to properly move for a directed verdict and by not taking specific objections to jury instructions.
• Allen v. Nelson Dodd Produce Co.
  207 F.2d 296· 10th Cir.· 1953-10-13 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the plaintiff's failure to properly object to jury instructions before they were given precludes appellate review of those instructions.
• Green v. Reading Co.
  183 F.2d 716· 3d Cir.· 1950-07-19 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the jury instructions were erroneous because they applied the standard of ordinary negligence rather than the standard of wanton negligence required when a defendant's duty to a plaintiff arises only upon discovery of the plaintiff's presence.
• Wright v. Farm Journal, Inc.
  158 F.2d 976· 2d Cir.· 1947-01-02 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial judge erred in submitting the question of whether the publication was libelous per se to the jury, as it is a question of law for the court when the language is unambiguous.
• Tucker v. Loew's Theatre & Realty Corp.
  149 F.2d 677· 2d Cir.· 1945-06-01 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the jury could infer notice of the defective carpet condition and that the trial court's instructions and evidentiary rulings were proper.
• Igor Lifshitz v. Walter Drake & Sons, Inc.
  806 F.2d 1426· 9th Cir.· 1986-12-30 ·cited 27×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of Etna's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the unfair competition claim and its denial of Etna's motion for a new trial, and affirmed the district court's entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict on Lifshitz's
• Mid-America Food Serv., Inc. v. ARA Servs., Inc.
  578 F.2d 691· 8th Cir.· 1978-06-06 ·cited 27×
  A jury verdict for punitive damages without an award of actual damages is permissible under Kansas law when the defamation is slander per se, as actual damages are presumed as a matter of law.
• Kai Jakobsen v. Mass. Port Auth.
  520 F.2d 810· 1st Cir.· 1975-06-30 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the Massachusetts Port Authority waived its defense regarding a statutory limitation on liability by failing to plead it timely, and that sufficient evidence supported a finding of negligence and business invitee status.
• Travelers Indem. Co. v. Robert W. Bengtson ad Litem for the Minors Dorothy and Margery Bengtson (Dorothy Bengtson and Margery Bengtson
  231 F.2d 263· 5th Cir.· 1956-03-27 ·cited 27×
  The court held that a suit brought by minors through a guardian ad litem is permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, even if state law would require a tutor.
• Electro Servs., Inc. v. Exide Corp.
  847 F.2d 1524· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-28 ·cited 26×
  The court affirmed the jury's award of compensatory and punitive damages, finding no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings, sufficient evidence for lost profits, a proper jury instruction on punitive damages, and that the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause does not ap
• Thurman Johnson v. Houser
  704 F.2d 1049· 8th Cir.· 1983-04-20 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiff waived any error in the jury instructions by failing to make a specific objection at trial, and the instruction did not constitute plain error.
• Savoie v. Otto Candies, Inc.
  692 F.2d 363· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings that the plaintiff was a Jones Act seaman, that the admission of maintenance payments was not reversible error, and that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent.
• Gwendy Wilson v. Crouse-Hinds Co.
  556 F.2d 870· 8th Cir.· 1977-04-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the jury instructions on strict liability were erroneous because they improperly allowed the jury to consider the decedent's or employer's contributory negligence and maintenance failures as a defense.
• The Ala. Great S. R.R. Co. v. Chicago & Nw. Ry. Co.
  493 F.2d 979· 8th Cir.· 1974-03-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the jury's verdict for the defendant was supported by substantial evidence, and the trial court did not err in denying the plaintiff's motions for judgment n.o.v. or a new trial.
• Emery v. The N. Pac. R.R. Co.
  407 F.2d 109· 8th Cir.· 1969-02-17 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the submission of the decedent passenger's contributory negligence to the jury was not justified by the facts or North Dakota law.
• Paluch v. Erie Lackawanna R.R. Co.
  387 F.2d 996· 3d Cir.· 1968-01-03 ·cited 26×
  The court held that contributory negligence was a proper issue for the jury and that the verdict was not so inadequate as to shock the conscience.
• Am. Motors Sales Corp. v. Semke
  384 F.2d 192· 10th Cir.· 1967-09-28 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Automobile Dealers' Day in Court Act covers situations where a manufacturer's coercion forces a dealer to terminate their franchise, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding of lack of good faith and awarded damages for lost profits.
• Smith v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
  382 F.2d 190· 10th Cir.· 1967-08-17 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiff waived the right to appeal the jury instruction by failing to object after the instructions were given, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51.
• Walsh v. Miehle-Goss-Dexter, Inc.
  378 F.2d 409· 3d Cir.· 1967-05-12 ·cited 26×
  The dissenting judge believes the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should have been granted, finding the plaintiff's conduct constituted negligence per se.
• Walker v. W. Coast Fast Freight, Inc.
  233 F.2d 939· 9th Cir.· 1956-05-22 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting evidence presentation based on the pre-trial order, admitting the defendant's medical expert testimony, or in its jury instructions, and that the jury's verdict was not misconduct.
• Chicago v. Kifer
  216 F.2d 753· 10th Cir.· 1954-10-30 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the parking of a baggage truck too close to the rails constituted actionable negligence and that the issue of contributory negligence was a question of fact for the jury. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for a new trial based o
• Thorp v. Am. Aviation & Gen. Ins. Co.
  212 F.2d 821· 3d Cir.· 1954-05-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court erred in awarding pre-verdict interest on unliquidated damages, as New Jersey law prohibits such interest. The court also found no reversible error in the jury charge, evidence admissibility, or cross-examination rulings.
• Hammer v. Gross
  932 F.2d 842· 9th Cir.· 1991-05-13 ·cited 25×
  The Ninth Circuit en banc held that while the use of force to extract a blood sample from a suspect is governed by the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard, the question of whether the force used in this case was excessive was a matter for the jury. The court also