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

• Simmons v. Union Terminal Co.
  290 F.2d 453· 5th Cir.· 1961-05-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error in its rulings regarding the safe place to work, the special issue charge, or the admission of impeachment evidence.
• Evans B. Johnson v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co.
  227 F.2d 858· 7th Cir.· 1955-11-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant's objections to jury instructions were not sufficiently specific to preserve the issues for appeal under Rule 51, and therefore the issues were not properly before the court.
• Inosencia Solorio v. The Atchison
  224 F.2d 544· 10th Cir.· 1955-06-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to preserve for review her objections to the jury instructions due to non-compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51, and that the defendant's closing argument was not improper.
• Ky. Tr. Co. v. Seldon R. Glenn
  217 F.2d 462· 6th Cir.· 1954-11-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court erred by improperly restricting the appellant's counsel's argument to the jury and by admitting incompetent and prejudicial testimony from an Internal Revenue agent.
• Moore v. Waring
  200 F.2d 491· 2d Cir.· 1952-12-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff waived the right to assign error regarding jury instructions by failing to object, and that the exclusion of evidence for special damages was proper due to vagueness.
• O'Connell v. Naess
  176 F.2d 138· 2d Cir.· 1949-07-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions or rulings, and affirmed the judgment for the defendants.
• Christensen v. Trotter
  171 F.2d 66· 9th Cir.· 1948-11-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and a relevant statute, and did not err in excluding impeachment evidence.
• Cafasso v. Pa. R. Co.
  169 F.2d 451· 3d Cir.· 1948-08-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting a co-employee's prior statement, refusing to admit evidence of the defendant's custom regarding statements, or in his comments regarding a witness not called by either party.
• Levin v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.
  158 F.2d 55· 7th Cir.· 1946-11-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the jury verdict was supported by substantial evidence regarding the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's freedom from contributory negligence, and that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions.
• Dudley Teel v. Deputy Sheriff Jonathan Lozada
  99 F.4th 1273· 11th Cir.· 2024-04-18 ·cited 11×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error in the jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, or the grant of summary judgment on the Monell claim.
• Smith v. Great Am. Rests., Inc.
  969 F.2d 430· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-24 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the jury's finding of age discrimination and willfulness was supported by sufficient evidence, but remanded for recalculation of damages and attorney's fees.
• Johnson v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc.
  892 F.2d 422· 5th Cir.· 1990-01-24 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the appellants waived their right to appeal issues regarding remand, bifurcation, and jury instructions due to failure to properly raise them below, and that the trial judge's conduct did not constitute plain error.
• Moore v. Fenex
  809 F.2d 297· 6th Cir.· 1987-01-14 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the trial court erred in submitting the breach of fiduciary duty claim against Frost and Brownfield to the jury due to lack of proper pleading and notice, and that there was insufficient evidence to support fraud or § 10b-5 liability against them. The court af
• Dahlgren v. United States
  553 F.2d 434· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-03 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the 'Parker principle,' which states that majority stock ownership can have a higher per-share value than minority stock, and that the state court judgment was irrelevant to the valuation issue.
• Marti Pogue v. Retail Credit Co.
  453 F.2d 336· 4th Cir.· 1972-01-19 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in directing a verdict for Retail Credit and in allowing the case against Hammerly to proceed to the jury, ultimately affirming the district court's decision.
• Bush v. Carpenter Bros., Inc.
  447 F.2d 707· 5th Cir.· 1971-08-20 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the administrator's citizenship controls diversity jurisdiction when beneficiaries merely lend their names to the suit, and that the defendant Merrill's dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction was erroneous under the Mississippi long-arm statute.
• Stephens v. The C.I.T. Group/Equipment Fin., Inc.
  955 F.2d 1023· 5th Cir.· 1992-03-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury's finding of constructive discharge was supported by substantial evidence, but the damages award was excessive as a matter of law due to the failure to offset interim earnings.
• Wilson v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.
  939 F.2d 260· 5th Cir.· 1991-08-19 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgments, holding that sexual harassment claims can be cognizable under the Jones Act if they involve tortious conduct beyond Title VII violations, and that the statute of limitations was properly applied, barring claims outside the limita
• Clay Fryman and Bobby Kinder v. Fed. Crop Ins. Corp.
  936 F.2d 244· 6th Cir.· 1991-06-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the invited error doctrine did not preclude the trial court from granting a new trial and summary judgment when there was a clear and prejudicial error in jury instructions regarding the necessity of consideration for an oral insurance contract.
• Werbungs UND Commerz Union Austalt v. Collectors' Guild, Ltd.
  930 F.2d 1021· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the instructional error regarding discovery abuse constituted plain error and could not be cured by remittitur, but disagreed on whether to reach the preclusionary rulings.
• Bowen Sanders v. Parker Drilling Co.
  911 F.2d 191· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-07 ·cited 10×
  Under Alaska law, an employer must prove that the employee actually engaged in the alleged misconduct to establish "just cause" for termination, and a jury is entitled to review the evidence to determine if the conduct occurred.
• Olson v. Tyler
  825 F.2d 1116· 7th Cir.· 1987-07-08 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the jury verdict, holding that the plaintiff waived his right to appeal the jury instructions and that his claims regarding the omission of facts from the arrest warrant affidavit were not properly preserved for appeal.
• Perkinson v. Gilbert/Robinson, Inc.
  821 F.2d 686· D.C. Cir.· 1987-06-19 ·cited 10×·via Rule 51
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding sanctions for discovery abuse, but erred in its jury instructions regarding negligence per se and contributory negligence.
• Jerry H. Peveto and wife v. Sears
  807 F.2d 486· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the jury's purported 'true verdict' or in refusing a new trial, as juror testimony about mental processes is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 606(b) and the jury instructions were no
• Klein v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
  773 F.2d 1421· 4th Cir.· 1985-09-17 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the compensatory damages award to Steven Klein, reversed the consortium award to Claudia Klein due to insufficient evidence, and affirmed the denial of leave to amend for punitive damages.
• W.B. Farms v. Fremont Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co.
  756 F.2d 663· 8th Cir.· 1985-03-07 ·cited 10×
  An oral agreement by a drawee bank to pay a check when sufficient funds are in the drawer's account is valid and enforceable under Nebraska law, and sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that such an agreement was made.
• Ouimette v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc.
  740 F.2d 72· 1st Cir.· 1984-07-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on waiver and in instructing the jury on ratification, affirming the jury's verdict for the defendant.
• Bailey v. Turner
  736 F.2d 963· 4th Cir.· 1984-06-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the lower court erred in instructing the jury on the good faith defense, as the defendant's actions violated clearly established law and thus the defense was not available.
• Longoria v. B.T. Wilson
  730 F.2d 300· 5th Cir.· 1984-04-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the post-judgment settlement dispute and vacated the judgment on that issue, remanding for further proceedings. Other claims of error were found to be harmless.
• DeHUES v. W. Elec. Co.
  710 F.2d 1344· 8th Cir.· 1983-07-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit plain error in its jury instructions or in denying post-trial motions, affirming the judgment for the defendant.
• H.H. Henderson v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
  695 F.2d 109· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that USF&G's prior concealment of the insurance policy precluded defenses to punitive damages and that issues regarding policy cancellation notice were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel.
• Starr v. J. Hacker Co., Inc.
  688 F.2d 78· 8th Cir.· 1982-09-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury on the state of the art defense, and that other challenged jury instructions and the admission of deposition testimony were either properly preserved or permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Barger v. Mayor & City Council OF Baltimore
  616 F.2d 730· 4th Cir.· 1980-03-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in instructing the jury on negligence per se based on OSHA regulations, the error was harmless and did not warrant reversal due to the city's failure to object and the lack of a miscarriage of justice.
• Eulo v. Deval Aerodynamics, Inc.
  430 F.2d 325· 3d Cir.· 1970-08-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the release agreement's interpretation and validity were not fully litigated, requiring a remand for further proceedings. The court also reversed the order for a new trial.
• The Donruss Co. v. United States
  384 F.2d 292· 6th Cir.· 1967-09-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court committed prejudicial error by failing to clarify the meaning of 'the purpose' in the jury instructions regarding the accumulated earnings tax, specifically whether tax avoidance must be the dominant motive.
• Cockrell v. Ferrier
  375 F.2d 889· 5th Cir.· 1967-04-18 ·cited 10×
  A trial judge's certificate can be included in the record to clarify non-evidentiary procedural events that occurred after the jury charge, especially when the opposing party does not dispute the certificate's truthfulness.
• Pete v. Jarrell and Arlie Junior Mick
  327 F.2d 233· 4th Cir.· 1964-01-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict, and the trial court did not err in admitting evidence or instructing the jury.
• Crespo v. Fireman's Fund Indem. Co. & Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
  318 F.2d 174· 9th Cir.· 1963-05-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellant could not assign error to jury instructions due to failure to object and that the refusal of a requested instruction was not reversible error.
• Altvater v. Battocletti
  300 F.2d 156· 4th Cir.· 1962-02-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a witness's estimate of visibility distance is competent evidence and that confusing jury instructions regarding proximate cause were reversible error.
• Guarnieri v. Kewanee-Ross Corp.
  270 F.2d 575· 2d Cir.· 1959-10-02 ·cited 10×·via Rule 51
  The court held that the trial court erred in its charge and application of New York law regarding indemnification between Kewanee and Burnham, and that Kewanee was entitled to a new trial on its third-party claim.
• Baldwin v. Fid. Phenix Fire Ins. Co. OF NEW York
  260 F.2d 951· 6th Cir.· 1958-11-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the insurance policy's requirement of "written notice shall be given" necessitates actual receipt or delivery of the notice by the insurer, not merely mailing.
• The Sucher Packing Co. v. Mfrs. Cas. Ins. Co.
  245 F.2d 513· 6th Cir.· 1957-06-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding inventory shortage evidence and in its jury instructions, and that the jury's verdict was justified by the evidence.
• Persons v. Gerlinger Carrier Co.
  227 F.2d 337· 9th Cir.· 1955-10-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that testimony regarding the absence of prior accidents is admissible to show notice of a potential danger, and that a party cannot assign error to jury instructions to which they failed to object before the jury retired.
• Seeraty v. Philadelphia Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc.
  198 F.2d 264· 3d Cir.· 1952-07-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing the plaintiff's requested jury instruction, as the charge adequately covered negligence and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable.
• Blair v. Cullom
  168 F.2d 622· 2d Cir.· 1948-05-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the oral modification of the contract for legal services was supported by valid consideration and that the plaintiff failed to prove his claims for misrepresentation and additional compensation.
• Swiderski v. Moodenbaugh
  143 F.2d 212· 9th Cir.· 1944-05-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury that exceeding the designated speed limit was prima facie evidence of negligence constituted reversible error.
• Earl v. Bouchard Transp. Co., Inc.
  917 F.2d 1320· 2d Cir.· 1990-11-02 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court did not err in its jury instructions regarding contributory negligence and loss of enjoyment of life, and affirmed the denial of a new trial, but reversed and remanded the portion of the judgment related to maintenance and cure.
• Brooks v. Great Lakes Dredge-Dock Co.
  754 F.2d 536· 5th Cir.· 1984-11-29 ·cited 9×
  The court held that an erroneous jury instruction regarding a seaman's duty of care, to which a timely objection was made, was not harmless error and required a new trial.
• Mel Cyrak for Steve King v. Stan Lemon
  919 F.2d 320· 5th Cir.· 1990-12-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Kramer and Lemon's appeals were untimely filed, and affirmed Weber's liability but reversed the damages award, finding that the district court erred in awarding both actual damages for the Rule 10b-5 violation and punitive damages.
• Palmer v. Krueger
  897 F.2d 1529· 10th Cir.· 1990-03-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions or evidentiary rulings, and that any minor errors were harmless.