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

• Miller v. NEW York Cent. R.R. Co.
  239 F.2d 10· 7th Cir.· 1956-12-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to preserve certain errors for appeal and that the issues of negligence and contributory negligence were properly submitted to the jury.
• Jones v. Koma
  218 F.2d 530· 10th Cir.· 1955-01-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the government's objection to jury instructions was not preserved for appeal because no exception was taken before the jury retired.
• Ostrowski v. Atl. Mut. Ins. Cos.
  968 F.2d 171· 2d Cir.· 1992-06-19 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court erred in failing to provide a burden-shifting jury instruction under Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, entitling the plaintiff to a new trial.
• Transcon. Leasing, Inc. v. Mich. Nat'l Bank OF Detroit
  738 F.2d 163· 6th Cir.· 1984-07-10 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court erred by instructing the jury that fear of financial ruin alone constitutes economic duress, as Michigan law requires a wrongful act. The court also held that the district court properly exercised pendent jurisdiction over state claims after
• United States v. Warner
  855 F.2d 372· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the taxpayer waived his right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence and the refusal of a jury instruction by failing to properly preserve these issues in the district court.
• Emerick v. U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp. & Suzuki Motor Co.
  750 F.2d 19· 3d Cir.· 1984-12-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding late-disclosed expert testimony and videotapes, nor in bifurcating the trial or instructing the jury on the duty to warn.
• Platis v. Stockwell
  630 F.2d 1202· 7th Cir.· 1980-09-09 ·cited 14×
  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51, requiring objection to jury instructions, applies in diversity cases, even if contrary state law exists, because it is a procedural rule within the scope of the Rules Enabling Act.
• Monomoy Fisheries, Inc. v. Bruno & Stillman Yacht Co., Inc.
  625 F.2d 1034· 1st Cir.· 1980-07-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant waived its right to appeal the failure to instruct the jury on mitigation of damages because it did not properly object after the jury charge as required by Rule 51.
• Appleyard v. Transamerican Press, Inc.
  539 F.2d 1026· 4th Cir.· 1976-08-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the jury instructions on punitive damages were erroneous because they allowed recovery without proof of knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
• Bilancia v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  538 F.2d 621· 4th Cir.· 1976-07-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that plaintiffs waived their right to appeal the choice of law issue by failing to object to the jury instructions and by agreeing to withdraw the issue.
• Bergstralh v. Lowe
  504 F.2d 1276· 9th Cir.· 1974-08-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in ruling as a matter of law that the arrest was legal, as conflicting evidence required jury determination.
• Clark Advertising Agency, Inc. v. Tice
  490 F.2d 834· 5th Cir.· 1974-03-08 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that evidence of contract terms negotiated by officers with apparent authority was admissible, jury instruction errors were waived, denial of opening argument was within the court's discretion, and attorney's fees were pro
• Noack v. Am. S.S. Co.
  491 F.2d 937· 6th Cir.· 1974-02-01 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the question of whether a vessel is 'in navigation' and whether a claimant is a 'seaman' under the Jones Act are generally questions of fact for the jury, and the jury's findings were not clearly erroneous. The court also affirmed the jury's findings regarding
• Hays v. United Fireworks MFG. Co.
  420 F.2d 836· 9th Cir.· 1969-12-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that efforts to influence public officials are generally immune from antitrust liability, but this immunity does not extend to conditioning sales on agreement to lobby, and any jury misconception was cured by instructions. The court also affirmed the denial of moti
• Cutter v. Cincinnati Union Terminal Co.
  361 F.2d 637· 6th Cir.· 1966-06-18 ·cited 14×·via Rule 51
  The court affirmed the jury verdict, holding that the defendant's procedural failures precluded challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, and that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in upholding the verdict as not against the weight of the evidence or excessive.
• Curko v. William Spencer & SON
  294 F.2d 410· 2d Cir.· 1961-09-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff waived his right to appeal the jury charge on concurrent negligence by failing to state the grounds for his objection as required by Rule 51.
• Phillips v. Kitt
  290 F.2d 377· D.C. Cir.· 1961-04-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that counsel's failure to object to a supplemental jury instruction, even if improper, precluded appellate review of that instruction as error.
• Rash Moore, Jr. v. Stephens
  271 F.2d 119· 6th Cir.· 1959-10-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the appellant waived the right to assign error regarding the jury instruction on the last-clear-chance doctrine by failing to object before the jury retired.
• MaKane Kane v. Am. Tankers Corp. OF Del.
  219 F.2d 637· 2d Cir.· 1955-02-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in dismissing the claim under 46 U.S.C. § 673, submitting the deviation question to the jury, or in its rulings on evidence and jury instructions, and affirmed the judgment.
• Boston Ins. Co. v. Fisher
  185 F.2d 977· 8th Cir.· 1950-12-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendant waived its right to appeal issues regarding the sufficiency of evidence and jury instructions because it failed to make proper motions and objections during the trial.
• Andrews v. Hotel Sherman, Inc.
  138 F.2d 524· 7th Cir.· 1943-11-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court erred in giving a peremptory instruction that directed a verdict for the plaintiff without considering the defendants' evidence of probable cause and in excluding evidence of the plaintiff's admission against interest regarding ownership of the
• Bereda v. Pickering Creek Indus. Park, Inc.
  865 F.2d 49· 3d Cir.· 1989-01-06 ·cited 13×
  A district court must notify parties of a jury's advisory status no later than jury selection begins, and failure to instruct on statutory back pay caps constitutes plain error requiring a new damages trial.
• Am. Alliance Ins. Co. v. Keleket X-Ray Corp.
  248 F.2d 920· 6th Cir.· 1957-10-19 ·cited 13×
  The dissenting judge held that the business interruption loss calculation was erroneous due to incorrect inventory valuation and that decontamination expenses should be included in the judgment.
• Willits v. Yellow Cab Co.
  214 F.2d 612· 7th Cir.· 1954-07-01 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the defendant waived its defense of release by failing to raise it properly and timely, and that other alleged errors were not grounds for reversal.
• Ames v. Provident Life & Accident Ins.
  942 F. Supp. 551· S.D. Fla.· 1994-08-26 ·cited 12×
  The court granted a new trial on the unjust enrichment and civil theft claims, finding the jury instructions were misleading and likely caused a miscarriage of justice, but denied the motion for JNOV on the total disability claim.
• Tarek H. Elgabri, M.D. v. Mary D. Lekas, M.D.
  964 F.2d 1255· 1st Cir.· 1992-06-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff waived objections to jury instructions by failing to properly preserve them under Rule 51 and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting witness examination or excluding evidence.
• Robertson OIL Co., Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
  930 F.2d 1342· 8th Cir.· 1991-04-18 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the jury instructions and evidentiary rulings but remanded for further consideration of the punitive damages award in light of Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip.
• Transnational Corp. v. Rodio & Ursillo, Ltd.
  920 F.2d 1066· 1st Cir.· 1990-12-12 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict, holding that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions and that the appeal was frivolous.
• Bachman v. ST. Monica's Congregation
  902 F.2d 1259· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-23 ·cited 12×
  A preference for members of a religious organization or faith does not alone constitute ancestral discrimination under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982, even if Jews are considered a race for these purposes.
• Norris J. Coulter v. Vitale
  882 F.2d 1286· 7th Cir.· 1989-08-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant waived his objection to the punitive damages jury instruction's standard of proof by failing to properly object at trial.
• Beckman v. Mayo Found.
  804 F.2d 435· 8th Cir.· 1986-10-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in controlling witness examination, giving jury instructions, or denying motions for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
• Swift v. R.H. MacY'S & Co., Inc.
  780 F.2d 1358· 8th Cir.· 1985-12-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial judge's comments during a supplemental jury charge were permissible and did not constitute plain error, as the issues were fairly submitted to the jury and the appellant failed to properly preserve the alleged error for review.
• Colomb v. Texaco, Inc.
  736 F.2d 218· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the drilling barge ERIS was a vessel in navigation and the plaintiff was a seaman as a matter of law, reversing the trial court's denial of a directed verdict on these issues. The court also held that the exclusion of inflation testimony required a remand for
• Lakin v. Daniel Marr & SON Co.
  732 F.2d 233· 1st Cir.· 1984-04-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the jury's damage awards were not excessive and that the admission of the economic expert's report and medical bills was proper, but erred in allowing the expert's calculation of interest on lost wages.
• Denniston v. Burlington N., Inc.
  726 F.2d 391· 8th Cir.· 1984-01-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole and considering the timely objections made, did not contain reversible error requiring a new trial.
• Iowa-Mo Enters., Inc. v. Avren
  639 F.2d 443· 8th Cir.· 1981-01-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding the seller's forfeited business license was proper due to procedural non-compliance, and that the jury instructions and damage award were not erroneous.
• McCAMLEY v. Shockey
  636 F.2d 256· 8th Cir.· 1981-01-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing the defendant's requested jury instructions, as the instructions given adequately covered the issues and the objections made were insufficient.
• The Kroger Co. v. Roadrunner Transp., Inc.
  634 F.2d 228· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on the Georgia avoidance doctrine when the evidence fairly raised the issue.
• Glasscock v. Wilson Constructors, Inc.
  627 F.2d 1065· 10th Cir.· 1980-08-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that promissory estoppel is available under Kansas law to prevent the application of the statute of frauds to an oral employment contract, and that reliance damages, including lost benefits from a prior employer's profit sharing plan, are recoverable.
• United States v. David E. Thompson, Inc.
  621 F.2d 1147· 1st Cir.· 1980-04-23 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not err in refusing a nolo contendere plea, admitting coconspirator statements, admitting certain evidence, or in its jury instructions, and that sufficient evidence supported the finding of a single, ongoing con
• Dalton E. Wellman and Anna M. Wellman v. Jellison
  593 F.2d 876· 9th Cir.· 1979-03-21 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the defendant's verdict, holding that the plaintiffs failed to properly preserve their objections to the jury instructions and that a new legal issue raised for the first time on appeal would not be considered.
• Mayfrey Mays v. Dealers Transit, Inc.
  441 F.2d 1344· 7th Cir.· 1971-03-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury on contributory negligence and the seat belt defense, as there was sufficient evidence to present these issues to the jury under Indiana law.
• Cramer v. Hoffman
  390 F.2d 19· 2d Cir.· 1968-02-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in allowing the assumption of risk defense, in submitting special questions to the jury without prior disclosure to counsel, or in ruling that a physician's alleged negligence could not be imputed to the University, and that the jur
• Ehlers v. Vinal
  382 F.2d 58· 8th Cir.· 1967-08-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that income from land contract transactions should be treated as ordinary income, not capital gains, and reported proportionately as received, not deferred until cost recovery. The net worth method was permissible for reconstructing income.
• Kramer D. Arnold v. Loose
  352 F.2d 959· 3d Cir.· 1965-10-19 ·cited 12×
• Alta Williams and her Husband Jack Williams v. John W. Hennessey for Penn-Dixie Lines, Inc.
  328 F.2d 490· 5th Cir.· 1964-02-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appellants failed to preserve their objection to the contributory negligence jury instruction due to lack of specific objection, and found no prejudicial error in the instruction on North Carolina intersection law.
• Swift v. S. Ry. Co.
  307 F.2d 315· 4th Cir.· 1962-08-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to meet the North Carolina requirements for the doctrine of last clear chance, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to submit the issue to the jury.
• Olin Mann v. Bowman Transp., Inc.
  300 F.2d 505· 4th Cir.· 1962-02-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in withdrawing the issue of contributory negligence from the jury and that the jury's verdict was not excessive.
• Kathleen Dudley (minor) v. Inland Mut. Ins. Co.
  299 F.2d 637· 4th Cir.· 1962-02-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions were erroneous because they did not properly address the issue of agency and the authority of an insurance agent to orally modify a policy, and the evidence was insufficient to support the instructions given.
• Harvel H. Cosper and Stella Cosper v. S. Pac. Co.
  298 F.2d 102· 9th Cir.· 1961-12-28 ·cited 12×
  A party must indicate their intent to object to jury instructions before the jury retires to preserve the issue for appeal, even if the court does not explicitly invite objections.