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

• Glaros v. H.H. Robertson Co.
  797 F.2d 1564· Fed. Cir.· 1986-07-22 ·cited 25×·via Rule 51
  The court affirmed the district court's partial summary judgment invalidating claims 1 and 3 for obviousness, and affirmed the jury's verdict finding claim 2 not invalid and willfully infringed, along with the denial of post-trial motions.
• Nat'l Indus., Inc. v. Sharon Steel Corp.
  781 F.2d 1545· 11th Cir.· 1986-02-13 ·cited 25×·via Rule 51
  The court held that the jury's award for lost profits was supported by sufficient evidence, but the award for loss of goodwill and reputation was not supported by substantial evidence and was properly set aside by judgment n.o.v.
• Brookhaven Landscape & Grading Co., Inc. v. J. F. Barton Contracting Co. & United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
  676 F.2d 516· 11th Cir.· 1982-05-17 ·cited 25×
  The court held that while the jury could find an oral agreement for extra boulder excavation, the plaintiff was only entitled to recover for boulders encountered beyond the area specifically designated in the contract plans, and the award must be reduced accordingly.
• Linn v. Andover Newton Theological Sch., Inc.
  874 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1989-04-27 ·cited 24×
  The court held that prejudgment interest should not have been awarded on top of liquidated damages under the ADEA, and that front pay should be calculated only through the plaintiff's seventieth birthday due to insufficient evidence of continued employment.
• Getty Petroleum Corp. v. Bartco Petroleum Corp.
  858 F.2d 103· 2d Cir.· 1988-09-22 ·cited 24×
  Punitive damages are not recoverable under Section 35 of the Lanham Act, as the statutory language and legislative history indicate a compensatory, not punitive, intent for monetary awards.
• Monahan v. Flannery
  755 F.2d 678· 8th Cir.· 1985-02-27 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the jury instructions were erroneous because they failed to properly account for a statute exempting highway workers from certain traffic rules and failed to instruct on the driver's duty to sound her horn.
• Conan Props., Inc. v. Conans Pizza, Inc.
  752 F.2d 145· 5th Cir.· 1985-02-04 ·cited 24×
  The dissenting judge believes the injunction should prohibit the defendant's use of the name CONAN outside of Austin to prevent continued confusion and protect the plaintiff's goodwill.
• Bowley v. Stotler & Co. & John Mulach c/o Stotler & Co.
  751 F.2d 641· 3d Cir.· 1985-01-08 ·cited 24×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the appellant failed to preserve the issue of the control instruction for appeal because no specific objection was made to the erroneous part of the charge.
• J.C. Bass v. United States Dep't OF Agric.
  737 F.2d 1408· 5th Cir.· 1984-08-06 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the standard of care and qualified immunity, and that other challenged instructions were not preserved for appeal.
• Wiskotoni v. Mich. Nat'l Bank-West
  716 F.2d 378· 6th Cir.· 1983-09-08 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the employee's termination for being subpoenaed to a grand jury investigating his own alleged misconduct did not violate public policy under Michigan law, and the evidence was insufficient to establish an implied contract for termination only for cause.
• Otten v. The Stonewall Ins. Co.
  511 F.2d 143· 8th Cir.· 1975-02-18 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial judge erred by instructing the jury on contract ambiguity and allowing them to interpret the supplemental insurance policy, as the policy was unambiguous and interpretation was a matter for the court.
• Richardson v. Commc'ns Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  486 F.2d 801· 8th Cir.· 1973-10-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the unions' claims regarding liability and damage apportionment were not properly preserved for appeal, and the jury's award of damages was not excessive.
• Hetzel v. Jewel Cos., Inc.
  457 F.2d 527· 7th Cir.· 1972-03-28 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial judge's jury instructions erroneously stated Indiana law by precluding recovery for obvious dangers and by requiring proof of actual notice of a specific condition rather than allowing inference of notice from a known, recurrent dangerous condition.
• Johnston v. Edward B. Baker. Appeal of Albert B. POE
  445 F.2d 424· 3d Cir.· 1971-07-20 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a corporation can be found liable for conspiracy if its agents act for personal motives, and that a jury instruction error regarding verdict unanimity was harmless due to lack of objection and no demonstrated prejudice.
• Haddigan v. Harkins
  441 F.2d 844· 3d Cir.· 1970-11-23 ·cited 24×
  The appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial on damages only. The court found that while the jury's findings on liability were supported by the evidence, two substantive defects in the damages phase required reversal: an erroneous jury instruction regardi
• O'Brien v. Willys Motors, Inc.
  385 F.2d 163· 6th Cir.· 1967-11-20 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial judge's failure to instruct the jury on the defendant's burden to prove contributory negligence by a preponderance of the evidence was an exceptional error that could be reviewed despite no objection being made.
• Linus Pauling v. News Syndicate Co., Inc.
  335 F.2d 659· 2d Cir.· 1964-07-07 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial judge's submission of the defamatory nature of the publication to the jury was proper, and that the reception of evidence, even if hearsay, was admissible for limited purposes like fair comment or mitigating circumstances, and that the judge's charge
• The Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York & Gen. Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp., Ltd. v. J. A. Jones Constr. Co.
  325 F.2d 605· 8th Cir.· 1963-12-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that where both parties are found to be actively negligent and owe similar duties to the injured party, neither is entitled to indemnity, even if one's negligence was greater.
• Bolan v. Lehigh Valley R. Co.
  167 F.2d 934· 2d Cir.· 1948-05-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that compliance with a regulation does not excuse a violation of the Boiler Inspection Act, and that a jury verdict supported by probative facts will not be overturned due to speculation.
• Krause v. R.O. Bennett, Jr.
  887 F.2d 362· 2d Cir.· 1989-09-20 ·cited 23×
  A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their actions did not violate the plaintiff's rights, and the warrant application was not so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence
• Steven Ray McDANIEL b/n/f and natural parent of Keith McDaniel v. Carroll
  457 F.2d 968· 6th Cir.· 1972-04-11 ·cited 23×
  A sheriff and his surety are liable for punitive damages for torts committed by a deputy sheriff in the performance of official duties, even if the sheriff did not participate in or ratify the act.
• Mark Seitman & Assocs., Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
  837 F.2d 1527· 11th Cir.· 1988-02-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in instructing the jury that it could award damages for the value of the business, and in awarding prejudgment interest, but affirmed the denial of the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
• Jean Arline Martinelli & Jack Martinelli v. City OF Beaumont
  820 F.2d 1491· 9th Cir.· 1987-07-02 ·cited 22×
  The court held that arresting a person for refusing to identify herself during a lawful Terry stop, under Cal. Penal Code § 148, violates the Fourth Amendment.
• Schaafsma v. Morin Vt. Corp.
  802 F.2d 629· 2d Cir.· 1986-10-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the jury's findings of mutual mistake and fraud were not inconsistent, but that the trial court committed plain error by forcing an election between securities and common law claims and by failing to include rescission as a remedy. The court vacated the judgme
• Gander v. MR. Steak OF SUN RAY, Inc.
  774 F.2d 920· 8th Cir.· 1985-10-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to give requested jury instructions on aggravation of injury by a subsequent accident or medical treatment, as the evidence did not support the plaintiffs' theory of the case.
• Ezell v. Mobile Hous. Bd.
  709 F.2d 1376· 11th Cir.· 1983-07-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that statistical evidence, even with a small sample size, can be relevant to proving discriminatory intent and impact under Title VII, and that the single-filing rule does not apply when a plaintiff's claim is dissimilar to those of prior EEOC filers.
• Paulino Izaguirre Rojas v. Richardson
  703 F.2d 186· 5th Cir.· 1983-04-21 ·cited 22×
  The court held that defense counsel's reference to the plaintiff as an "illegal alien" during closing arguments constituted plain error, prejudicing the jury and affecting substantial rights, thus warranting a new trial.
• Beardshall v. Minuteman Press Int'l, Inc.
  664 F.2d 23· 3d Cir.· 1981-11-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court committed reversible error by instructing the jury that fraud must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, when Pennsylvania law requires clear and convincing evidence, and by submitting a prejudicial written supplemental instruction.
• Olive Fields v. Chicago
  532 F.2d 1211· 8th Cir.· 1976-04-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, adequately presented the defendant railroad's theory of contributory negligence and the railroad's duty to maintain the crossing, and therefore substantial justice was done.
• Ries v. Lynskey
  452 F.2d 172· 7th Cir.· 1971-09-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that municipalities are not liable under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 or 1986, and that the trial court properly instructed the jury on contributory wilful and wanton conduct.
• EL Ranco, Inc. v. The First Nat'l Bank OF Nev.
  406 F.2d 1205· 9th Cir.· 1968-10-30 ·cited 22×·via Rule 51
  The court held that the jury's verdicts on the contract and conspiracy claims were supported by sufficient evidence, and that various procedural and evidentiary objections raised by the appellants were without merit.
• Cone v. Beneficial Standard Life Ins. Co.
  388 F.2d 456· 8th Cir.· 1968-01-09 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the appellant waived the right to assign error regarding jury instructions due to a failure to make specific objections, and that the jury's findings were not inconsistent with the general verdict.
• Stephan v. The Marlin Firearms Co., Inc.
  353 F.2d 819· 2d Cir.· 1965-12-20 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict for the defendants, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on voir dire, evidence exclusion, jury instructions, or the sufficiency of the evidence.
• Frasca v. Howell
  182 F.2d 703· D.C. Cir.· 1950-05-29 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for a new trial based on inadequate verdicts, nor did it err in refusing certain jury instructions.
• Alcaro v. Jean Jordeau, Inc.
  138 F.2d 767· 3d Cir.· 1943-10-27 ·cited 22×
• CVD v. Raytheon Co.
  769 F.2d 842· 1st Cir.· 1985-07-30 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the threat of unfounded trade secrets litigation in bad faith, used to exact a licensing agreement, can constitute a violation of antitrust laws, provided other elements of the violation are proven.
• Gradsky v. Sperry Rand Corp.
  489 F.2d 502· 6th Cir.· 1973-12-18 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the appellant preserved only those objections to jury instructions that were clearly made known to the trial court through proposed instructions or objections to opposing counsel's proposals.
• Hower v. Roberts (two cases)
  153 F.2d 726· 8th Cir.· 1946-02-26 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the wife's request for a concurrent negligence instruction was sufficiently preserved for review and its refusal was prejudicial error, requiring reversal. The husband's appeal was denied.
• Smith v. Mass. Inst. OF Tech.
  877 F.2d 1106· 1st Cir.· 1989-06-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the plaintiff waived his right to object to jury instructions by failing to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 51 and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike expert testimony or exclude EEOC reports.
• Donal J. Kelley v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp.
  849 F.2d 41· 1st Cir.· 1988-06-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the defendant's objection to the jury instruction was not preserved and that the exclusion of post-discharge statistical evidence was not an abuse of discretion.
• Ayers Ratliff v. Wellington Exempted Vill. Schs. Bd. OF Educ.
  820 F.2d 792· 6th Cir.· 1987-06-10 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the denial of judgment notwithstanding the verdict but vacated the compensatory damages award, remanding for a new trial on damages due to an erroneous jury instruction.
• Almonte v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co.
  787 F.2d 763· 1st Cir.· 1986-04-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the plaintiff forfeited her right to object to jury instructions due to procedural failures and that the admission of certain testimony was harmless error.
• Thomas v. Booker
  784 F.2d 299· 8th Cir.· 1986-02-14 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the jury improperly apportioned indivisible actual damages among defendants, requiring vacation of the award and remand for a new trial on actual damages.
• Pierce Packing Co. v. John Morrell & Co.
  633 F.2d 1362· 9th Cir.· 1980-12-17 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of unrelated product sales was not an abuse of discretion, the jury instructions on fixed costs were proper, and the appellant's failure to timely object to predatory pricing instructions precluded review. The jury's finding that the
• Clark v. John Lamula Invs., Inc.
  583 F.2d 594· 2d Cir.· 1978-08-24 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the jury's findings supported a judgment for the plaintiff under Rule 10b-5, finding that the defendant recommended unsuitable securities with scienter and omitted material information, and affirmed the damages award.
• Gen. Bev. Sales Co. v. East-Side Winery
  568 F.2d 1147· 7th Cir.· 1978-01-09 ·cited 20×
  The court held that erroneous jury instructions regarding antitrust law, particularly the application of Continental T.V. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. and the implication of anticompetitive purpose from an antitrust violation, constituted reversible error requiring a new trial.
• Frederic P. Wiedersum Assocs. v. Nat'l Homes Constr. Corp.
  540 F.2d 62· 2d Cir.· 1976-08-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding evidence regarding the timeliness and adequacy of the plans and in providing contradictory jury instructions.
• Manning v. NEW York Tel. Co.
  388 F.2d 910· 2d Cir.· 1968-02-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court's jury charge, while brief on the defendant's version, implicitly included it and did not constitute reversible error. The admission of evidence regarding the subsequent condition of the pole step and the expert testimony regarding its defectiv
• Burns v. Travelers Ins. Co. & Mich. Mut. Liab. Co.
  344 F.2d 70· 5th Cir.· 1965-04-07 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its rulings on cross-examination, jury instructions, refusal of a requested jury charge, denial of a new trial, or interruptions of closing argument.
• Locke v. The Atchison
  309 F.2d 811· 10th Cir.· 1962-09-26 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial motion and affirmed the judgment based on the jury's finding that the plaintiff's ruptured discs occurred after the release was executed.