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

• Martin v. United Fruit Co.
  272 F.2d 347· 2d Cir.· 1959-12-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the plaintiff waived objections to jury interrogatories by failing to make specific objections at trial and that the trial court properly excluded the issue of hinge placement from jury consideration due to lack of expert testimony.
• DE Fonce Constr. Co., Inc. v. City OF Miami
  256 F.2d 425· 5th Cir.· 1958-06-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that appellants failed to preserve most issues for appeal by not making timely objections or motions in the trial court.
• In re Linda Coal & Supply Co.
  255 F.2d 653· 3d Cir.· 1958-05-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that an appellate court cannot grant relief on a theory not passed upon by the trial court, especially when the party expressly limited the trial to a different theory.
• Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Bennett
  251 F.2d 934· 4th Cir.· 1958-01-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on punitive damages under South Carolina law when Georgia law applied, requiring a new trial unless plaintiffs elect to remit the punitive damages.
• Ditter v. Fellow CAB Co.
  221 F.2d 894· 7th Cir.· 1955-04-20 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the defendant's objections to jury instructions were untimely and that the trial court did not err in admitting testimony about the illegality of a U-turn or in denying a motion to reopen the case.
• Curd v. Todd-Johnson DRY Docks, Inc.
  213 F.2d 864· 5th Cir.· 1954-06-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial judge's conduct did not demonstrate bias or prejudice, and the jury instructions regarding contributory negligence were proper under Louisiana law.
• Ill. Cent. R. Co. v. Sigler
  122 F.2d 279· 6th Cir.· 1941-08-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court properly denied motions for a directed verdict and that there was no reversible error in the consolidated wrongful death actions.
• Furka v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., Inc.
  755 F.2d 1085· 4th Cir.· 1985-02-26 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to give a proper jury instruction on the rescue doctrine constituted plain error, requiring reversal despite the appellant's failure to object to the charge.
• Evansville Container Corp. v. McDonald
  132 F.2d 80· 6th Cir.· 1942-12-04 ·cited 19×
• Wammock v. Celotex Corp.
  835 F.2d 818· 11th Cir.· 1988-01-15 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the jury's award of compensatory and punitive damages, finding sufficient evidence of willful misconduct or conscious indifference to consequences to support the punitive damages award under Georgia law.
• Ivey v. Wilson
  832 F.2d 950· 6th Cir.· 1987-11-04 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to satisfy the 'some evidence' standard for due process, and therefore the finding of guilt did not violate due process.
• Parts & Elec. Motors, Inc. v. Sterling Elec., Inc.
  826 F.2d 712· 7th Cir.· 1987-11-04 ·cited 18×
  The court reversed the judgment n.o.v. and remanded the new trial order, finding that the defendant waived its arguments regarding market power in the tied product market by failing to properly preserve them at trial.
• Weir v. Fed. Ins. Co.
  811 F.2d 1387· 10th Cir.· 1987-02-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the defense of product misuse and by improperly instructing the jury on the elements of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, requiring reversal and remand for a new trial.
• Wright v. Odell Wagner
  641 F.2d 239· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a jury's finding that jail officials neither suspected nor should have suspected an inmate of insanity precluded a claim for wrongful death under state law and a civil rights violation under the Eighth Amendment based on a statutory violation. The court also f
• Ramirez v. SAN Mateo Cnty. Dist. Attorney's Off.
  639 F.2d 509· 9th Cir.· 1981-02-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a deputy district attorney position is considered part of the elected District Attorney's personal staff, exempt from Title VII coverage, and that retaliation claims were properly submitted to the jury as First Amendment free speech issues.
• Scott v. Plante
  641 F.2d 117· 3d Cir.· 1981-02-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying equitable relief regarding the conditions of confinement and vacated the judgment, remanding for further proceedings.
• In re AIR Crash Disaster AT John F. Kennedy Int'l Airport ON June 24
  635 F.2d 67· 2d Cir.· 1980-10-06 ·cited 18×
  The trial court did not err in excluding certain facts as stipulated, as the circumstances surrounding their admission and the parties' positions had changed due to the government's settlement.
• Atkin F. Seltzer and Helen Seltzer v. Chesley
  512 F.2d 1030· 9th Cir.· 1975-03-03 ·cited 18×
  Erroneous mandatory jury instructions on contributory negligence were effectively cured by subsequent clear and specific permissive instructions, and federal procedural rules govern the manner of jury instructions in federal court.
• Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Lumbert
  401 F.2d 699· 10th Cir.· 1968-09-26 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the judgment, finding the plaintiff contributorily negligent as a matter of law and the last clear chance doctrine inapplicable.
• Great-West Life Assurance Co. v. Gertrude Levy
  382 F.2d 357· 10th Cir.· 1967-09-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence supported a jury finding that the deceased was an employee under the group life insurance policy, and affirmed the judgment.
• Gordon Mailloux Enters., Inc. v. Firemen's Ins. Co. of Newark
  366 F.2d 740· 9th Cir.· 1966-09-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court erred in entering judgment notwithstanding the verdict for Merchants and in its instructions and comments to the jury regarding Mailloux, requiring reversal of both judgments.
• United States ex rel. Westinghouse Elec. v. James Stewart Co.
  336 F.2d 777· 9th Cir.· 1964-09-01 ·cited 18×
  A materialman to a subcontractor in a Miller Act case can be estopped from claiming the Act's protection if their conduct leads the prime contractor to reasonably rely on assurances that cause detriment.
• Sunfire Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers OF Am.
  313 F.2d 108· 6th Cir.· 1963-02-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the picketing constituted an unlawful secondary boycott under the Labor Management Relations Act and that the evidence supported the jury's verdict regarding the defendant's responsibility for the fire.
• Mrs. Betty G. Wingerter v. Md. Cas. Co. & Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
  313 F.2d 754· 5th Cir.· 1963-01-30 ·cited 18×·via Rule 51
  A jury verdict awarding zero damages is not invalid and does not necessitate a new trial, especially when the jury may have found no liability or no damages.
• Nolan v. Bailey
  254 F.2d 638· 7th Cir.· 1958-05-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the notice of appeal was sufficient despite a technical defect, and that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendants as there was sufficient evidence of negligence for the jury.
• Voltmann v. United Fruit Co.
  147 F.2d 514· 2d Cir.· 1945-02-05 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge believes the jury charge correctly applied an objective standard of negligence, and the verdict should be upheld despite a minor linguistic ambiguity.
• Landsman Packing Co., Inc. v. Cont'l CAN Co., Inc.
  864 F.2d 721· 11th Cir.· 1989-01-30 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the reasonableness of the 12-month warranty limitation, and that the jury's finding of no conversion was against the clear weight of the evidence.
• Lucien Sherrod v. Berry
  827 F.2d 195· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-20 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the admission of evidence that the suspect was unarmed after the shooting was prejudicial and irrelevant, and that the jury instructions regarding prior misconduct were improper.
• Hamblen v. Cnty. OF LOS Angeles
  803 F.2d 462· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-23 ·cited 17×
  The court dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to properly identify and object to the jury instruction at issue, and the attorney's brief was replete with procedural deficiencies.
• Chase v. Consol. Foods Corp.
  744 F.2d 566· 7th Cir.· 1984-09-11 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the jury instructions on apparent authority, while flawed, were not reversible error, and the exclusion of evidence regarding potential financing was proper under Rule 403.
• Sinclair Ref. Co. v. Howell
  222 F.2d 637· 5th Cir.· 1955-05-13 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the defendant was not entitled to a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict based on the Workmen's Compensation Act, and that the jury's damages award was not excessive.
• McEWEN v. The City OF Norman
  926 F.2d 1539· 10th Cir.· 1991-03-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to preserve most issues for appeal due to lack of contemporaneous objections at trial, and that the admitted evidence and jury instructions did not constitute plain error.
• THE Post Off. v. Portec, Inc.
  913 F.2d 802· 10th Cir.· 1990-08-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that defendant waived several issues by failing to object at trial, affirmed the constitutionality of the Colorado punitive damages statute, but reduced the punitive damages award due to excessiveness, and affirmed the award of attorney fees under the Lanham Act.
• Air-Sea Forwarders, Inc. v. AIR Asia Co., Ltd.
  880 F.2d 176· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the bad faith denial of contract existence is a tort distinct from breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and does not require a special relationship between the parties. The court affirmed the district court's conditional new trial ord
• Shiley, Inc. v. Bentley Labs., Inc.
  794 F.2d 1561· Fed. Cir.· 1986-06-16 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the jury's findings of non-infringement, non-invalidity, and no inequitable conduct were supported by substantial evidence, and that the district court did not err in its rulings on damages, willful infringement, or d
• Smith v. Honeywell, Inc.
  735 F.2d 1067· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the plaintiff's motions for a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, as the jury instructions and factual findings were proper and supported by evidence.
• Wojciechowski v. Long-Airdox Div. OF Marmon Grp.
  488 F.2d 1111· 3d Cir.· 1973-11-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting testimony about prior incidents, dismissing the third-party action against the employer, or in its other rulings, and affirmed the jury verdict against the manufacturer.
• V-M Corp. v. Bernard Distrib. Co.
  447 F.2d 864· 7th Cir.· 1971-07-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the wholesale distributor agreement's limitations on liability and exclusion of consequential damages were valid and enforceable, barring Bernard's counterclaims and set-off claims.
• United States v. Polack
  442 F.2d 446· 3d Cir.· 1971-04-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that comments made by the prosecution regarding the defendant's judicial position, cross-examination of character witnesses, and jury instructions on willfulness did not constitute reversible error.
• Bogacki v. Am. Mach. & Foundry Co.
  417 F.2d 400· 3d Cir.· 1969-09-30 ·cited 16×
  The court should have noticed the fundamental error of failing to charge the jury on the implied warranty of merchantability, even if Rule 51's requirements were not met.
• Avern Tr. v. Clarke
  415 F.2d 1238· 7th Cir.· 1969-07-14 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's findings that the defendants did not commit fraud or breach a fiduciary relationship in the securities transactions.
• Ross v. Up-Right, Inc.
  402 F.2d 943· 5th Cir.· 1968-08-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit plain error in its jury instructions regarding breach of warranty, failure to provide instructions, or res ipsa loquitur, and that an erroneous assumption of risk instruction was immaterial to the outcome.
• Thompson v. Trent Mar. Co., Ltd.
  353 F.2d 632· 3d Cir.· 1965-11-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court erred in ordering a remittitur on damages, and that the shipowner was not entitled to indemnity from the stevedore based on the jury's findings and the evidence presented.
• Lorene M. Swain v. Boeing Airplane Co.
  337 F.2d 940· 2d Cir.· 1964-10-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51's requirement to allow objections to jury instructions out of the jury's hearing is subject to harmless error analysis and does not automatically require reversal.
• Sowizral v. Mrs. Adele M. Hughes
  333 F.2d 829· 3d Cir.· 1964-06-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a general objection to jury instructions is insufficient to preserve an issue for appeal, and that the trial court's instructions on the burden of proof and sudden emergency were not a gross miscarriage of justice.
• Skyway Aviation Corp. v. Minneapolis
  326 F.2d 701· 8th Cir.· 1964-01-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that accepting an incomplete special verdict was not error when the unanswered question did not affect the outcome, and expert testimony regarding flight regulations was admissible.
• Ferrara v. Sheraton McALPIN Corp.
  311 F.2d 294· 2d Cir.· 1962-12-10 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court's jury charge on constructive notice was insufficient as a matter of law, and the appellate court could consider this error despite the defendant's failure to make a timely objection below.
• Honebein v. McDONALD
  299 F.2d 493· 8th Cir.· 1962-02-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions on damages were adequate and that the jury's award was not so excessive as to warrant appellate review.
• Arnett Alexander & Walworth Trucking Corp. v. Kramer Bros. Freight Lines, Inc.
  273 F.2d 373· 2d Cir.· 1959-12-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant waived the right to appeal the jury charge on contributory negligence by failing to properly object under Rule 51, and that the exclusion of witness statements was proper.
• Arrow Aviation, Inc. v. Moore
  266 F.2d 488· 8th Cir.· 1959-04-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence supported a jury finding of negligence by the pilot, and that the trial court properly denied the defendant's motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict.