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

• Mary v. Winans
  705 F.2d 1449· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Louisiana law does not impose strict liability on those who merely repair products, and that the trial court properly refused to instruct the jury on res ipsa loquitur due to the failure to join all potential tortfeasors and negate pilot fault.
• Ellis v. K-Lan Co., Inc.
  695 F.2d 157· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in qualifying the expert witness and did not err in refusing jury instructions not properly requested or objected to.
• Ebanks v. S. Ry. Co.
  640 F.2d 675· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial judge violated Fed.R.Civ.P. 51 by materially deviating from the jury charge previously represented to counsel, necessitating a new trial.
• Hopkins v. Chip-In-Saw, Inc.
  630 F.2d 616· 8th Cir.· 1980-09-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions on the manufacturer's duty to warn were inadequate because they did not fully address the possibility that the duty could extend beyond the purchaser to the machine's operators.
• Johnston v. Pierce Packing Co. & Thomas C. White
  550 F.2d 474· 9th Cir.· 1977-03-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the failure to instruct the jury on the presumption of due care and the absence of an intelligible instruction on the defendant's burden of proving the decedent's negligence require reversal and a new trial.
• Ball v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.
  519 F.2d 715· 6th Cir.· 1975-07-24 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict for the defendant on the negligence claim and the directed verdict for the defendant on the strict liability claim.
• Janina Pietrucha v. Grant Hosp.
  447 F.2d 1029· 7th Cir.· 1971-08-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court committed reversible error by improperly denying the plaintiff's motion to call a hospital supervisor as an adverse witness, excluding the testimony of a prior treating physician, and allowing defense counsel to misstate the law regarding volun
• Smith v. The Travelers Ins. Co.
  438 F.2d 373· 6th Cir.· 1971-02-17 ·cited 6×·via Rule 51
  The court held that objections to jury instructions were waived, admission of certain letters was harmless error, and prejudicial closing arguments did not warrant a new trial given curative instructions.
• Porter v. Am. Exp. Lines
  387 F.2d 409· 3d Cir.· 1968-01-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions, despite some ambiguity, did not constitute fundamental error and that the plaintiff failed to preserve any objection to the charge.
• Iannacito v. Denver & RIO Grande W. R.R.
  380 F.2d 1019· 10th Cir.· 1967-06-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions adequately explained the law, and failure to object to the instructions precluded appellate review of their adequacy.
• Erwin v. Leander E. Keck
  351 F.2d 403· 6th Cir.· 1965-10-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial judge adequately presented the issues of negligence and last clear chance to the jury, and the jury's finding that the defendant was not negligent was supported by the evidence.
• Price v. H. L. Coble Constr. Co.
  317 F.2d 312· 5th Cir.· 1963-05-08 ·cited 6×
  A party furnishing labor and materials under a direct contract with a subcontractor is covered by the statutory payment bond, and recovery includes profits calculated based on the contract price.
• Clifford Barney (Plaintiff) v. The Staten Island Rapid Transit Ry. Co.
  316 F.2d 38· 3d Cir.· 1963-04-08 ·cited 6×·via Rule 51
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment for defendants John H. Grace Co. and Hunt Manufacturing Company, and remanded for a new trial against Staten Island Rapid Transit Company.
• Darter v. Greiner
  301 F.2d 772· 10th Cir.· 1962-03-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that submitting the doctrine of last clear chance to the jury was improper because the evidence did not support its application.
• Miller v. The Del.
  241 F.2d 116· 2d Cir.· 1957-02-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in denying the motion for a new trial and that the verdict was supported by the evidence.
• Cap. Transit Co. v. Howard
  196 F.2d 593· D.C. Cir.· 1952-04-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting the negligence issue to the jury and in giving a supplementary charge to a deadlocked jury.
• James v. United States (two cases)
  191 F.2d 472· D.C. Cir.· 1951-06-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the prosecutor's argument was improper, the trial court's statement sufficiently cured the error, and the convictions should be affirmed.
• O'Donnell v. Elgin
  171 F.2d 973· 7th Cir.· 1948-12-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury instructions were confusing and did not correctly state the law regarding the Safety Appliance Act, leading to a wrong result.
• Comparet v. United States
  164 F.2d 452· 10th Cir.· 1947-12-03 ·cited 6×
  The fair market value of property taken by eminent domain should be determined as of the date of taking, not the date of trial.
• Ermini v. Scott
  937 F.3d 1329· 11th Cir.· 2019-09-10 ·cited 5×
  The court held that federal law governs whether a district court may inform the jury about the legal effect of its findings, and that doing so accurately is permissible. It also held that evidence of deputies' use of force was admissible in a negligent wellness check claim, and t
• Kenneth R.M. Thompson, Kenneth R.M. Thompson, P.C. v. Paasche
  950 F.2d 306· 6th Cir.· 1991-11-29 ·cited 5×
  The court affirmed the fraud verdict and damages rulings, reversed the RICO verdict, and affirmed the denial of injunctive relief against Miller but reversed the denial against Paasche.
• Piechoski v. Grace Lines, Inc.
  409 F.2d 66· 3d Cir.· 1969-04-08 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the plaintiff's motions for judgment n.o.v. or a new trial because the plaintiff failed to properly preserve his objections to the jury charge.
• Wilson v. Ward Baking Co.
  318 F.2d 674· 6th Cir.· 1963-06-15 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting interrogatories regarding willful and wanton conduct, as the plaintiffs' complaints alleged such conduct, and the defendant owed no duty to a trespasser beyond refraining from willful injury.
• Gulf v. Thornton
  294 F.2d 104· 8th Cir.· 1961-08-30 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to present the question of whether the crossing was a 'user-crossing' to the jury, and that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the railroad's duty to warn.
• Balchunas v. Palmer
  151 F.2d 842· 2d Cir.· 1945-11-05 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the trial court's jury charge regarding the Connecticut statute on the presumption of reasonable care and the burden of proving contributory negligence was adequate, and the exclusion of certain evidence was not reversible error.
• Home Design Servs., Inc. v. Turner Heritage Homes Inc.
  825 F.3d 1314· 11th Cir.· 2016-06-17 ·cited 4×·via Rule 51
  The concurring opinion agrees with the panel's conclusion that precedent requires affirmance of the district court's judgment but argues that the precedent itself, Intervest Construction, Inc. v. Canterbury Estate Homes, Inc., represents a flawed approach to copyright jurispruden
• Ward v. Hickey
  996 F.2d 448· 1st Cir.· 1993-06-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a teacher waived her right to a jury determination on the notice issue by failing to request a special interrogatory, and that the district court erred in applying the interrelated claims doctrine to deny attorneys' fees.
• Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF SAN Juan Cnty. v. Liberty Grp.
  965 F.2d 879· 10th Cir.· 1992-05-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instruction on the scienter element for Rule 10b-5 violations was erroneous, requiring a new trial on that claim, and that there was insufficient evidence to prove a RICO enterprise distinct from the defendant, warranting judgment notwithstanding the
• Diann R. Timmerman v. Modern Indus., Inc.
  960 F.2d 692· 7th Cir.· 1992-04-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instructions were proper and supported by evidence, and that the jury's verdict finding the decedent more than 50% negligent was supported by sufficient evidence, thus denying motions for a directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and a
• Bogan v. Stroud
  958 F.2d 180· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that defendants waived their right to appeal the jury's award of punitive damages without compensatory damages by failing to object to the jury instruction that permitted such an award.
• Krementz v. Raby
  959 F.2d 695· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant failed to preserve objections to jury instructions on joint venture and sudden emergency, and no plain error occurred.
• City OF Richmond v. Madison Mgmt. Grp., Inc.
  918 F.2d 438· 4th Cir.· 1990-10-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the statute of repose did not bar the fraud claim, and the economic loss rule did not preclude recovery for fraud, as sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding of knowing misrepresentation.
• Wright v. Jones
  907 F.2d 848· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instructions for both compensatory and punitive damages were proper, and that the directed verdict for Richard Wright was also correct.
• Castrignano v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc.
  900 F.2d 455· 1st Cir.· 1990-04-05 ·cited 4×·via Rule 51
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of a new trial, finding that the defendant failed to preserve its objections to jury instructions and that the Rhode Island Supreme Court's decision did not constitute a change in law requiring a new trial. The court also affirmed th
• Tinnon v. Burlington N. R.R. Co.
  898 F.2d 1340· 8th Cir.· 1990-03-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellants' objection to the jury instruction was not specific enough to preserve the issue for appeal, and the alleged error did not constitute plain error.
• Graham v. Davis
  880 F.2d 1414· D.C. Cir.· 1989-08-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an instruction preventing recovery if both parties used excessive force was erroneous, and that a claim for negligent training against a municipality requires alleging deliberate indifference.
• Hess OIL Virgin Islands Corp. v. UOP, Inc.
  861 F.2d 1197· 10th Cir.· 1988-11-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the contractual limitation of liability to property damage and bodily injury was enforceable under Illinois law, and that UOP's negligence claims were distinct from its contractual duties. The court also found that UOP waived objections to jury interrogatories
• Marcellin L. Smith v. Ferrel
  852 F.2d 1074· 8th Cir.· 1988-08-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was supported by substantial evidence and that any error in the jury instruction was harmless.
• Shirkey v. ELI Lilly & Co.
  852 F.2d 227· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Wisconsin law on strict liability and negligence regarding DES is unclear, warranting certification of questions to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The court also found the negligence instruction likely misstated Wisconsin law by unduly narrowing the scope of for
• Kostelecky v. NL Acme Tool/NL Indus., Inc.
  837 F.2d 828· 8th Cir.· 1988-01-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the admission of an accident report containing a legal conclusion was an error, it was harmless. The court also affirmed the trial court's decisions regarding jury instructions, verdict forms, separate trials, and quashing a subpoena.
• Fischer v. Dallas Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  835 F.2d 567· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that appellants failed to preserve their objections to evidentiary rulings and jury instructions by not properly presenting them to the trial court, and any error in class certification was harmless due to the jury's verdict.
• Hamman v. Sw. GAS Pipeline, Inc.
  821 F.2d 299· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-15 ·cited 4×
  A party acquiring an interest in property subject to a lis pendens notice takes that interest subject to the outcome of the litigation, and a settlement binding the original parties also binds the lis pendens purchaser.
• Audette v. Isaksen Fishing Corp.
  789 F.2d 956· 1st Cir.· 1986-04-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's entry of judgment was not inconsistent with substantial justice, as the collective polling procedure adequately ensured verdict unanimity under the circumstances, and the jury's finding on proximate cause supported the judgment.
• Moore v. M.P. Howlett, Inc.
  704 F.2d 39· 2d Cir.· 1983-03-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that the shipowner was negligent in failing to maintain a safe deck, and thus should have anticipated the harm to the longshoreman.
• Duty v. E. Coast Tender Serv., Inc.
  660 F.2d 933· 4th Cir.· 1981-01-23 ·cited 4×
  The court should affirm the district court's ruling, as the negligence per se rule does not apply to licensing statutes.
• Will M. Chandler and Mary L. Hays Chandler v. Edgar W. Long, Inc.
  623 F.2d 1139· 6th Cir.· 1980-06-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in giving a sudden emergency instruction, in refusing to grant a directed verdict, or in instructing the jury on causation using the 'substantial factor' standard, and affirmed the judgment.
• Lane v. Geiger-Berger Assocs., P.C.
  608 F.2d 1148· 8th Cir.· 1979-11-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the damage instruction was not plain error because the parties were not joint tortfeasors, and the pre-trial order superseded the pleadings, establishing the issues for trial.
• The Est. OF Stuart Lutren v. Chesapeake AND Ohio Railroad
  592 F.2d 941· 6th Cir.· 1979-02-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge violated Rule 51 by amending jury instructions after closing arguments, causing material prejudice to the plaintiff.
• Haywood v. Ball
  586 F.2d 996· 4th Cir.· 1978-11-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the state law negligence claim after a jury verdict, and that the plaintiff waived his right to appeal jury instructions by failing to object.
• Earnest Richardson v. The City OF Conroe
  582 F.2d 19· 5th Cir.· 1978-10-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury charge adequately presented the issue of police officer liability for a constitutional tort, and that the jury's finding of good faith refuted the appellant's claims.