Federal Rule Of Evidence 301

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

• Chandler v. United States
  218 F.3d 1305· 11th Cir.· 2000-07-21 ·cited 555×
  The en banc court held that the attorney's performance during the sentencing phase of the capital trial did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel as a matter of law. The court found that the attorney's actions, including his limited investigation into mitigating eviden
• Patti v. Schweiker
  669 F.2d 582· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-18 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the Secretary's determination that the claimant's disability had ceased was not supported by substantial evidence, as the prior disability determination created a presumption of continued disability that was not rebutted.
• Presbyterian/ST. Luke's Med. Ctr. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  653 F.2d 450· 10th Cir.· 1981-07-08 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board erred in presuming a single facility bargaining unit appropriate for registered nurses in a health care system and in applying a presumption that shifted the burden of proof, contrary to congressional intent and federal rules
• Pennzoil Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  789 F.2d 1128· 5th Cir.· 1986-05-14 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) fundamentally misconstrued this Court's prior decision in Pennzoil by misapplying the Order 23 presumption and failing to properly construe contract language under state law.
• Am. Coal Co. & Energy Mut. Ins. Co. v. Benefits Review Bd.
  738 F.2d 387· 10th Cir.· 1984-07-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply to Black Lung Benefits Act administrative proceedings and that the employer failed to rebut the presumption of disability.
• Beth Israel Hosp. & Geriatric Ctr. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  688 F.2d 697· 10th Cir.· 1982-09-13 ·cited 18×
  The NLRB's use of presumptions to certify bargaining units is permissible in representation proceedings, as Federal Rule of Evidence 301 applies only to unfair labor practice proceedings.
• James v. River Parishes Co., Inc.
  686 F.2d 1129· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-27 ·cited 16×
  The court should have applied Federal Rule of Evidence 301, which states that presumptions do not shift the burden of persuasion.
• In re The Yoder Co. v. The Yoder Co.
  758 F.2d 1114· 6th Cir.· 1985-04-02 ·cited 14×
  A presumption of receipt from mailing is rebutted by testimony of non-receipt and has no probative effect once rebutted under Federal Rule of Evidence 301.
• Cerveceria Centroamericana, S.A. v. Cerveceria India, Inc.
  892 F.2d 1021· Fed. Cir.· 1989-12-26 ·cited 12×
  The Board did not err in holding that Centroamericana abandoned its trademark 'MEDALLA DE ORO' due to non-use.
• In re Emerald OIL Co. v. Fred Wilson Drilling Co.
  695 F.2d 833· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-17 ·cited 12×
  A debt is 'incurred' for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code's ordinary course of business exception when the debtor becomes obligated to pay, not when the creditor invoices the debtor. A creditor's speculative testimony regarding accounting methods is insufficient to rebut the statu
• Clay v. Traders Bank OF Kan. City
  708 F.2d 1347· 8th Cir.· 1983-06-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the debtors were insolvent when the deed of trust was executed, making it a voidable preference, but remanded for determination of whether a $125,000.00 debt was an antecedent corporate debt.
• Beth Israel Hosp. & Geriatric Ctr. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  677 F.2d 1343· 10th Cir.· 1981-07-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board erred in applying a presumption that a bargaining unit restricted to registered nurses is appropriate, as this contradicts the congressional mandate to avoid undue proliferation of bargaining units in the healthcare industry.
• City OF Boston v. S.S. Texaco Tex.
  773 F.2d 1396· 1st Cir.· 1985-09-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the pilotage clause in a towage agreement is valid and enforceable, and that the award of prejudgment interest from the date of the collision was proper.
• Tenneco Chems., Inc. v. William T. Burnett & Co., Inc.
  691 F.2d 658· 4th Cir.· 1982-10-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the presumption of operability for the '658 apparatus patent was not lost by Tenneco's introduction of inconclusive evidence or by its counsel's statements, and thus the district court erred in invalidating it. However, the court affirmed the invalidity of the
• Collins v. City OF Norfolk
  883 F.2d 1232· 4th Cir.· 1989-08-18 ·cited 5×
  The dissenting judge argues the majority created new rules that too narrowly define 'minority-preferred candidate' and 'legally significant white bloc voting' contrary to statute and precedent.
• Allseas Mar., S.A. v. M/V Mimosa
  812 F.2d 243· 5th Cir.· 1987-03-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a salvage award is limited to the value of the property saved and reduced the award because it was disproportionate to the saved value and other factors. The court also held that the salvor did not prove ownership of the fuel oil, thus it could not be included
• Hood v. Knappton Corp. Inc.
  986 F.2d 329· 9th Cir.· 1993-02-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admiralty principle shifting the burden of proof to a drifting vessel is not superseded by Federal Rule of Evidence 301 and remains applicable in this circuit.
• Plough, Inc. v. The Mason & Dixon Lines
  630 F.2d 468· 6th Cir.· 1980-10-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court misallocated the burden of proof under the Carmack Amendment by requiring the shipper to prove specific carrier negligence after establishing a prima facie case.
• McClurg v. Santa Rosa Golf & Beach Club, Inc.
  46 F. Supp. 2d 1244· N.D. Fla.· 1999-03-15 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the 'same decision' test is an affirmative defense, and the issue of whether a plaintiff's protected status was a motivating factor is for the jury to decide. Direct evidence will not be treated differently from other evidence at trial.
• Bruner v. Off. OF Pers. Mgmt.
  996 F.2d 290· Fed. Cir.· 1993-06-14
  The court held that when an agency terminates an employee for disability, this creates a presumption of disability that shifts the burden of production to the government in subsequent disability annuity proceedings.