Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 61 (Harmless Error)

50 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Sutton v. Barnhouse
  724 F.2d 406· 4th Cir.· 1983-12-30 ·cited 96×
  The court held that National Steel did not violate ERISA by modifying contingent benefits and that the union did not breach its duty of fair representation. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgments.
• Burgess v. Premier Corp.
  727 F.2d 826· 9th Cir.· 1984-03-05 ·cited 91×
  The court held that summary judgment and directed verdicts were properly denied on statute of limitations and release issues, but should have been granted for defendants Schrock and Darby on federal and state securities claims due to insufficient evidence of scienter or control.
• Int'l AIR Indus., Inc. v. Am. Excelsior Co.
  517 F.2d 714· 5th Cir.· 1975-08-18 ·cited 81×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to direct a verdict for the plaintiff on the Robinson-Patman charge, nor in excluding certain evidence, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate substantial impairment of competition or predatory intent.
• Davis v. Combustion Eng'g, Inc.
  742 F.2d 916· 6th Cir.· 1984-08-16 ·cited 61×
  The court's majority opinion is not fully detailed here, but the dissenting opinion argues against the front pay award and the jury instructions on willfulness.
• BIG O Tire Dealers, Inc. v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
  561 F.2d 1365· 10th Cir.· 1977-09-02 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting the issue of descriptiveness to the jury, that reverse confusion is actionable under Colorado law, and that the jury's findings on liability and damages were supported by sufficient evidence.
• McQUEENEY v. Wilmington Tr. Co.
  779 F.2d 916· 3d Cir.· 1985-12-26 ·cited 53×
  The court held that evidence of subornation of perjury is relevant under Rule 401 and, absent substantial unfair prejudice, admissible under Rule 403, and that the standard for harmless error review in civil cases is the same as in criminal cases ('highly probable' the error did
• Tugwell v. A. F. Klaveness & Co.
  320 F.2d 866· 5th Cir.· 1963-07-03 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the exclusion of a prior injury report and the judge's comments regarding the plaintiff's withholding of evidence did not constitute harmful error, as the jury had already determined the accident did not occur.
• Johnson v. Trueblood
  629 F.2d 287· 3d Cir.· 1980-07-31 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the plaintiffs' motion to amend their pleadings to include claims arising from the foreclosure of the shopping center, and that the jury instruction regarding the business judgment rule was also erroneous under Delaware law.
• Emery J. Hill v. Spiegel, Inc.
  708 F.2d 233· 6th Cir.· 1983-05-31 ·cited 45×
  The court held that damages for pain and suffering are not recoverable under the ADEA and that certain employee statements admitted as hearsay were inadmissible. The court also found that liquidated damages are mandatory upon a finding of willfulness.
• United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Alpha Beta Co.
  736 F.2d 1371· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-10 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the disputed contract provision is susceptible to a lawful interpretation by an arbitrator, and therefore the employer must arbitrate the dispute. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of the employer's motions to dismiss.
• Holmes v. J. RAY McDERMOTT & Co., Inc.
  734 F.2d 1110· 5th Cir.· 1984-06-25 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the use of prior witness statements was harmless error, the safety expert's testimony was admissible, and the jury's award of damages for willful refusal of maintenance and cure was supported by evidence. However, the award of maintenance and cure beyond the d
• Malhiot v. S. Cal. Retail Clerks Union & Drug Emp'r Pension & Tr. Fund
  735 F.2d 1133· 9th Cir.· 1984-06-19 ·cited 42×
  Attorneys are entitled to notice and an opportunity for a hearing before sanctions are imposed under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
• Belen Torres v. Cnty. OF Oakland & Oakland Cnty. Cmty. Mental Health Servs. Bd.
  758 F.2d 147· 6th Cir.· 1985-03-19 ·cited 37×
  The court held that admitting testimony containing a legal conclusion was harmless error, and that a single instance of derogatory language or a downgraded evaluation, without more, does not constitute a separate claim for employment discrimination.
• Nathalie L. Dupont v. S. Pac. Co.
  366 F.2d 193· 5th Cir.· 1966-09-21 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court's consolidation of cases did not prejudice the substantial rights of the driver's survivors, nor was the appointment of lead counsel an abuse of discretion.
• Nachtsheim v. Beech Aircraft Corp.
  847 F.2d 1261· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-26 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of a prior similar accident and in redacting a portion of an incident report, as the evidence was not substantially similar or was unduly prejudicial.
• Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. Burkett
  192 F.2d 941· 5th Cir.· 1951-11-16 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions, when considered as a whole, were not erroneous or confusing, and the verdict was not excessive.
• Hageman v. Signal L. P. GAS, Inc.
  486 F.2d 479· 6th Cir.· 1973-10-31 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the amendment to include the pain and suffering claim related back to the original filing, and that the settlement with a co-defendant did not fully preclude the plaintiff's wrongful death claim against the appellant, but remanded for allocation of settlement
• Josephs v. Harris Corp.
  677 F.2d 985· 3d Cir.· 1982-05-13 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court erred by limiting evidence of a product's defectiveness to the date of manufacture rather than the date of sale, and that this error was prejudicial, requiring a new trial.
• United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Jadranska Slobodna Plovidba
  683 F.2d 1022· 7th Cir.· 1982-05-28 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the jury's finding of no negligence by the shipowner was reasonable, and that the jury instructions, while potentially abstract, were not prejudicial.
• Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Makover
  654 F.2d 1120· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-04 ·cited 23×
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c) does not apply when the insurer, rather than the claimant, is the party seeking to appeal, even if the insurer initiated the declaratory judgment action.
• Doty v. Sewall
  908 F.2d 1053· 1st Cir.· 1990-07-17 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment on most issues, finding no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings or denial of a new trial, but reversed the denial of prejudgment interest on state law claims.
• Olive Fields v. Chicago
  532 F.2d 1211· 8th Cir.· 1976-04-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, adequately presented the defendant railroad's theory of contributory negligence and the railroad's duty to maintain the crossing, and therefore substantial justice was done.
• Glanzman v. Uniroyal, Inc.
  892 F.2d 58· 9th Cir.· 1989-12-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that any error in admitting unanswered interrogatories was harmless. The court also found the appeal to be frivolous and awarded attorney's fees.
• W. D. Lawson & Co. & Wash. Gen. Ins. Co. v. Penn Cent. Co. & Fort Worth & Denver Ry. Co.
  456 F.2d 419· 6th Cir.· 1972-02-29 ·cited 17×
  The Carmack Amendment preempts common law claims for interstate carriage, and Tennessee courts may exercise jurisdiction over foreign corporations with local offices for causes of action arising outside the state.
• Perry v. Larson
  794 F.2d 279· 7th Cir.· 1986-06-23 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support findings of political retaliation, improper evidentiary rulings did not deny a fair trial, and damages were properly calculated.
• Hall v. Freese
  735 F.2d 956· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-09 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was inconsistent with substantial justice due to the inadequacy of the award and prejudicial remarks by defense counsel, warranting a new trial.
• Chandler v. United States
  372 F.2d 276· 10th Cir.· 1967-01-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the government's amendment to the Declaration of Taking, eliminating an unlawful royalty reservation, was permissible, and that the commission's report was valid despite the lack of formal instructions, as the proceedings met the requirements of Merz and Rule
• Williams v. Rawlings Truck Line, Inc.
  357 F.2d 581· D.C. Cir.· 1965-12-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the District Court erred in directing a verdict for Goldberger, as New York law, specifically its estoppel doctrine, should apply to determine ownership and potential liability.
• Patch v. The Stanley Works (Stanley Chem. Co. Division) & Thomas Keller
  448 F.2d 483· 2d Cir.· 1971-08-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court correctly applied New Hampshire law regarding strict liability and the wrongful death damage limitation, and also correctly awarded pre-judgment interest from the date the complaints were filed.
• Mullen v. Princess Anne Volunteer Fire Co., Inc.
  853 F.2d 1130· 4th Cir.· 1988-08-09 ·cited 13×
  The court held that while the exclusion of evidence of racial slurs was improper, it did not affect the substantial rights of the parties given the overwhelming evidence of the plaintiff's physical unsuitability for the job.
• Tikalsky v. City OF Chicago
  687 F.2d 175· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting a new trial based on the reversal of a case that had minimal impact on the jury's deliberations and was not a basis for the jury's verdict.
• Fiandaca v. Cunningham
  827 F.2d 825· 1st Cir.· 1987-08-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to disqualify counsel due to a conflict of interest, but affirmed the finding of liability on equal protection grounds, remanding only for a new determination of the remedy.
• James v. Bell Helicopter Co.
  715 F.2d 166· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that damages solely to the product itself are not recoverable in a products liability action under Texas law, but may be recoverable under Illinois law if the damage constitutes 'physical damage' rather than economic loss. The court also held that the appellant fai
• Polson v. Davis
  895 F.2d 705· 10th Cir.· 1990-02-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Kansas law does not recognize defamation per se, that remedies under the Kansas Acts Against Discrimination preclude a common law retaliatory discharge claim, that negligent supervision is not a recognized tort in Kansas, and that Title VII claims cannot be br
• Diede v. Burlington N. R.R. Co.
  772 F.2d 593· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a Boiler Safety Inspection Act regulation as evidence of negligence under FELA, nor in excluding testimony and a stipulation regarding the non-taxability of annuity payments.
• Compagnie DES Bauxites de Guinee v. Ins. Co. of N. Am. Appeal of Compagnie Des Bauxites de Guinee
  721 F.2d 109· 3d Cir.· 1983-11-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was supported by evidence and that no trial errors warranted a new trial, affirming the judgment.
• C. L. Forester and wife v. The Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co.
  338 F.2d 970· 5th Cir.· 1964-11-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while defense counsel's statement was inadmissible, it did not cause substantial prejudice to the plaintiff, and the jury instructions were adequate.
• Manhattan Shirt Co. v. Andrew D. M. Tomlinson in Bankr. of the Est. of N. Porter Mercantile Co.
  327 F.2d 449· 9th Cir.· 1964-01-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that even if the referee did not strictly follow bankruptcy rules in selecting a creditors' committee and trustee, reversal was not warranted due to the lack of demonstrated prejudice and the futility of relitigating the issue after the estate had been liquidated.
• In re River Hills Apts. Fund v. River Hills Apts. Fund
  813 F.2d 702· 5th Cir.· 1987-04-06 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the foreclosure sale was valid because the automatic stay had expired, the debtor was not denied a required hearing, and the sale price was not grossly inadequate under Texas law.
• Clark v. Mobil OIL Corp.
  693 F.2d 500· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the magistrate's findings of negligence and damages were not clearly erroneous, and therefore affirmed the denial of the motion for a new trial.
• Frechette v. Welch
  621 F.2d 11· 1st Cir.· 1980-05-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that admitting depositions without satisfying Fed.R.Civ.P. 32(a)(3) was error, but the error was harmless and did not warrant reversal.
• United States v. 88.28 Acres OF Land
  608 F.2d 708· 7th Cir.· 1979-11-07 ·cited 4×
  The dismissal of parties claiming an interest in condemned land without determining their interest was error, but did not prejudice their substantial rights, thus the judgment is affirmed.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. United Benefit Life Ins. Co.
  359 F.2d 619· D.C. Cir.· 1966-03-10 ·cited 4×
  A Flexible Fund Annuity (FFA) is an insurance product, not a security, and is therefore exempt from federal regulation under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940.
• Bryant Murphy v. Tivoli Enters.
  953 F.2d 354· 8th Cir.· 1992-01-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while admitting telephone testimony and failing to provide a meaningful opportunity for counsel to object to a jury instruction response were errors, they did not constitute prejudicial error requiring reversal.
• Peters v. Five Star Marine Serv.
  898 F.2d 448· 5th Cir.· 1990-04-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in excluding expert testimony or accident reports, as the excluded evidence was either unnecessary or cumulative.
• United States v. Tri-No Enters., Inc.
  819 F.2d 154· 7th Cir.· 1987-04-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that removing coal from stockpiles constitutes a 'surface coal mining operation' under SMCRA, that no statute of limitations bars the government's claim for reclamation fees, and that allowing a corporation to be represented by a non-lawyer was harmless error.
• Guar. Abstract & Title Co., Inc. v. United States
  696 F.2d 793· 10th Cir.· 1983-01-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting the issue of unreasonable earnings accumulation to the jury, nor in refusing to allow inspection of a witness's personal note.
• Est. OF C.M. Largent, III v. United States
  910 F.2d 497· 8th Cir.· 1990-08-06 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the district court's finding that the pilot's negligence was more than slight compared to the FSS Specialists' negligence was not clearly erroneous.
• In re NEW Concept Hous., Inc. v. Arl W. Poindexter, Jr.
  951 F.2d 932· 8th Cir.· 1991-12-20
  The court held that the bankruptcy court's failure to provide notice of a settlement hearing to the debtor was a denial of due process and not harmless error, even though the debtor was not represented by counsel.
• DON Kemper Co., Inc. v. Beneficial Standard Life Ins. Co.
  425 F.2d 221· 3d Cir.· 1970-04-20
  The court held that the trial judge did not commit reversible error in admitting or excluding evidence or in the jury charge, and thus affirmed the judgment.