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

• Grosvenor Props. Ltd. v. Southmark Corp.
  896 F.2d 1149· 9th Cir.· 1990-02-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Southmark waived objections to jury instructions due to insufficient specificity and that a corporate officer acting within the scope of employment is not personally liable for the corporation's breach of fiduciary duty under Canadian or California law.
• Grant v. Farnsworth
  869 F.2d 1149· 8th Cir.· 1989-03-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion in limine, refusing the chiropractor's testimony, directing verdicts on constitutional claims, refusing jury instructions, or awarding attorney fees.
• Lummus Indus., Inc. v. D.M. & E. Corp.
  862 F.2d 267· Fed. Cir.· 1988-11-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury instructions on patent infringement, specifically the distinction between repair and reconstruction, were adequate and that the verdict of infringement was supported by substantial evidence. The court also vacated the denial of prejudgment interest, r
• Edwards v. Jewish Hosp. OF ST. Louis
  855 F.2d 1345· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-02 ·cited 8×
  An employer violates 42 U.S.C. § 1981 if race is a substantial or motivating factor in a discharge, even if the employer would have made the same decision absent discrimination; however, the employer may avoid reinstatement or back pay by proving the same decision would have been
• Milo Holt v. Artis
  843 F.2d 242· 6th Cir.· 1988-03-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court's jury instructions, even if imperfect, did not constitute reversible error mandating a new trial, particularly absent objection.
• Katch v. Speidel
  746 F.2d 1136· 6th Cir.· 1984-10-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury's damage award was excessive due to an inadequate instruction on the duty to mitigate damages, and that the remittitur did not sufficiently cure this error.
• Kenney v. Lewis Revels Rare Coins, Inc.
  741 F.2d 378· 11th Cir.· 1984-09-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the negligence of a co-employee driver cannot be imputed to a passenger co-employee under a joint venture theory when the relationship arises solely from their employment. The court also held that a party cannot assign error to jury instructions without making
• Creative Cookware, Inc. v. Northland Aluminum Prods., Inc.
  678 F.2d 746· 8th Cir.· 1982-05-10 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that Northland's procedural failures barred challenges to sufficiency of evidence for infringement and damages, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying post-trial motions.
• Burks v. The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
  633 F.2d 1152· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that giving a jury instruction to balance the utility of a product's design against the risk of harm was proper, even when the defendant had stipulated to the feasibility of a safer alternative design.
• Nuno J. DoCARMO v. F.V. Pilgrim I. Corp.
  612 F.2d 11· 1st Cir.· 1979-12-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that under the Jones Act, survivors of a seaman killed on the high seas are limited to recovering pecuniary damages, and that the jury's finding of no damages was not an abuse of discretion.
• Bayard W. Kennett v. DELTA AIR Lines, Inc.
  560 F.2d 456· 1st Cir.· 1977-07-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was not excessive and that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions or its responses to jury questions, particularly regarding the exclusion of income taxes from damage calculations.
• Granite Music Corp. v. United Artists Corp.
  532 F.2d 718· 9th Cir.· 1976-03-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that evidence of prior musical compositions containing a common four-note sequence was properly admitted to show independent creation, and that the jury instructions regarding the burden of proof were not plainly erroneous.
• Rivers v. Angf. A/B Tirfing
  450 F.2d 12· 5th Cir.· 1971-10-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff waived his right to object to jury instructions by failing to object at trial, and that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict.
• Clark v. Cent. States Dredging Co.
  430 F.2d 63· 8th Cir.· 1970-08-12 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the defendant's procedural errors in moving for a directed verdict and objecting to jury instructions precluded review, and that the evidence supported the jury's findings.
• Jones v. The United States
  387 F.2d 1004· 10th Cir.· 1967-12-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding certain evidence or in refusing to give a jury instruction on 'good will'.
• Guest House Motor INN, Inc. v. Mrs. Christine W. Duke and John W. Duke
  384 F.2d 927· 5th Cir.· 1967-11-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court properly refused the appellant's request for an affirmative charge and that the appellant's objections to jury charges were unavailing.
• Westinghouse Credit Corp. v. Green
  384 F.2d 298· 10th Cir.· 1967-10-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury's finding of apparent authority was supported by substantial evidence, and the denial of directed verdict motions was proper.
• Weir v. Simmons
  357 F.2d 70· 8th Cir.· 1966-03-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury instructions were not prejudicial error and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict, affirming the judgment.
• Waxler v. Waxler Towing Co., Inc.
  342 F.2d 746· 6th Cir.· 1965-01-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury charge, despite minor deficiencies, was not so prejudicial as to warrant reversal, especially given the lack of timely objection.
• S. Pac. Co. v. Sixto B. Villarruel
  307 F.2d 414· 9th Cir.· 1962-08-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury instructions on res ipsa loquitur were adequate and that the defendant waived review of certain grounds for objection.
• Westmoreland v. Memphis Transit Co.
  305 F.2d 71· 6th Cir.· 1962-06-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while admitting the bus driver's statement was hearsay error, it was not prejudicial. The court also held that instructing the jury on reckless driving without supporting evidence was harmless error.
• Williams v. Union Pac. R.R.
  286 F.2d 50· 9th Cir.· 1960-12-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its rulings on evidence or jury instructions, and that the appellant waived certain claims by failing to object.
• Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Commercial Transp., Inc.
  273 F.2d 447· 7th Cir.· 1960-01-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a railroad can recover amounts expended for hospital and medical bills of injured employees and that industry-standard overhead percentages are admissible to prove repair costs.
• City OF Boston v. Boston Edison Co.
  260 F.2d 872· 1st Cir.· 1958-11-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the City's appeal from the judgment on the cross-claims was untimely, and that the trial court correctly dismissed the City's indemnity cross-complaint against Boston Edison.
• Sulentich v. The Interlake S.S. Co.
  257 F.2d 316· 7th Cir.· 1958-06-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury instruction regarding the affirmative defense of misrepresentation was a correct statement of the law and properly given, and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate prejudicial error on appeal.
• Greinke v. Yellow CAB Co.
  250 F.2d 865· 7th Cir.· 1958-01-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and that the defendant waived certain objections due to procedural failures.
• Maurine Huse v. Consol. Freightways, Inc.
  227 F.2d 425· 7th Cir.· 1955-11-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in allowing a party substitution, in the jury's award for pecuniary loss, or in certain jury instructions, and affirmed the judgment.
• Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Farmer
  220 F.2d 90· 6th Cir.· 1955-03-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court's jury charge contained reversible error regarding the proximate cause requirement for violating a city speed ordinance, but that the charge concerning the state railroad precautions statute, when viewed in its entirety, was not reversible erro
• Kan. City Pub. Serv. Co. v. Taylor
  210 F.2d 3· 8th Cir.· 1954-02-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for a directed verdict and that the jury instructions were adequate.
• Dostal v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.
  189 F.2d 352· 3d Cir.· 1951-05-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the 'incontrovertible physical facts' rule did not apply because the physical facts were disputed and required witness testimony, and that the jury instructions regarding the presumption of due care and the absence of safety measures were not prejudicial error
• Hoag v. City of Detroit
  185 F.2d 764· 6th Cir.· 1950-12-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court properly submitted the question of practicability to the jury and that no reversible error occurred regarding jury instructions or evidentiary rulings.
• Goodyear Fabric Corp. v. Hirss
  169 F.2d 115· 1st Cir.· 1948-07-16 ·cited 8×·via Rule 51
  The court held that the jury charge, when viewed in its entirety, adequately conveyed the central issue of the comparative condition of the premises at the beginning and end of the lease, despite a potentially confusing initial phrasing.
• Bercut v. Park
  150 F.2d 731· 9th Cir.· 1945-07-18 ·cited 8×
  Prospective net profits are recoverable as general damages for breach of contract to sell goods, even if the seller was unaware of market unavailability, provided there is a satisfactory basis for estimation.
• Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. Pub. Util. Dist. NO. 1 OF Whatcom Cnty.
  123 F.2d 286· 9th Cir.· 1941-10-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the public utility district's taking of properties was a public necessity and that the trial court did not err in its rulings on evidence or jury instructions regarding just compensation.
• Ways v. City OF Lincoln
  871 F.2d 750· 8th Cir.· 1989-04-03 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish a racially hostile work environment under Title VII, that the jury verdict was not inconsistent, and that the parties' failure to object to jury instructions regarding the LPD's liability was their own fault, but that t
• McCLOW v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co.
  842 F.2d 1250· 11th Cir.· 1988-04-19 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to properly object to jury instructions regarding the burden of proof, and therefore, any error would be reviewed for plain error, which was not found.
• Panger v. Duluth
  490 F.2d 1112· 8th Cir.· 1974-01-11 ·cited 7×
  The court held that excluding evidence of industry practice regarding line-up procedures was prejudicial error, requiring reversal and a new trial.
• Keohane v. The NEW York Cent. R.R. Co.
  418 F.2d 478· 2d Cir.· 1969-11-10 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the exclusion of testimony regarding the condition of the elevator before and after the accident was reversible error because such evidence is relevant to inferring the condition at the time of the accident.
• Lavoie v. Pac. Press & Shear Co.
  975 F.2d 48· 2d Cir.· 1992-09-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant waived its right to challenge the jury's verdicts as inconsistent by failing to raise the objection in the trial court.
• Niehus v. Vince Liberio and Frank Vittorio
  973 F.2d 526· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury's award for excessive force was supported by evidence, and that a loss of consortium claim cannot be brought under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.
• Hygh v. Jacobs
  961 F.2d 359· 2d Cir.· 1992-04-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that expert testimony stating an officer's conduct was 'totally improper' and 'not justified' crossed the line into legal conclusions, but was harmless error. The court also held that a dismissal 'in the interest of justice' does not constitute a favorable terminat
• Chat Phav v. Trueblood, Inc.
  915 F.2d 764· 1st Cir.· 1990-09-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial solely on the issue of damages, as there was no substantial indication that the inadequate damages award resulted from a compromise verdict on liability.
• United States For Use and Benefit of Dennie Reed v. C.E. Callahan
  884 F.2d 1180· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that California Civil Code § 1717 applies to Miller Act subcontracts, making a unilateral attorney's fees clause reciprocal, and that the subcontractor is entitled to fees for the entire case, not just the state law portion. The court also affirmed the denial of th
• Kinan v. City OF Brockton
  876 F.2d 1029· 1st Cir.· 1989-06-02 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the directed verdicts and jury findings, holding that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence, directing verdicts, or in its jury instructions.
• Levinson v. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
  868 F.2d 558· 3d Cir.· 1989-02-14 ·cited 6×
  Punitive damages are recoverable under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, but the jury charge on calculating them was erroneous, requiring a new trial solely on the amount of punitive damages.
• Phenix Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Shearson Loeb Rhoades, Inc.
  856 F.2d 1125· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in granting judgment n.o.v. on the contract claim, dismissing RICO claims, or in its rulings regarding Phenix's damages, affirming the judgments in all respects.
• Nottingham v. Gen. Am. Commc'ns Corp.
  811 F.2d 873· 5th Cir.· 1987-03-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in awarding damages and partial rescission, nor in its evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or damage calculations, and affirmed the judgment.
• Lear v. The Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y OF the United States
  798 F.2d 1128· 8th Cir.· 1986-08-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the agent, David, only had express authority to collect the first premium check, and thus the principal, Equitable, was not liable for subsequent misrepresentations. The court also found that the statute of limitations issue should have been submitted to the j
• Coastal Distrib. Co., Inc. v. NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd.
  779 F.2d 1033· 5th Cir.· 1986-01-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Coastal's fraud and unfair competition claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and the oral contract was unenforceable as an illegal restraint of trade.
• Campana v. Eller
  755 F.2d 212· 1st Cir.· 1985-02-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to allow the jury to determine individual liability separately, denying leave to amend the complaint during deliberations, or in its jury instructions and conduct during trial.