-
867 F.2d 1354·
11th Cir.·
1989-03-16
·cited 96×
The court held that the appellants' convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that various evidentiary and prosecutorial rulings were not grounds for reversal.
-
575 F.2d 346·
2d Cir.·
1978-02-27
·cited 84×
The court held that the government's failure to issue "target" warnings did not vitiate convictions, and evidence was sufficient for corporate tax evasion convictions. However, one conviction for personal income tax evasion was reversed due to inadmissible hearsay testimony.
-
568 F.2d 643·
9th Cir.·
1978-01-23
·cited 39×
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the defendant's prior statement regarding his intentions and that the defendant's statements were properly admitted despite not being preceded by Miranda warnings at the time they were made.
-
877 F.2d 520·
7th Cir.·
1989-06-07
·cited 34×
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination, admitting a photograph, or applying the sentencing enhancement statute to prior burglary convictions.
-
780 F.2d 1102·
4th Cir.·
1985-12-04
·cited 34×
The en banc court erred by departing from the Classified Information Procedures Act and existing standards for evidence admissibility, particularly concerning classified information the defendant seeks to introduce.
-
829 F.2d 988·
10th Cir.·
1987-09-22
·cited 32×
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motions to sever, suppress wiretap evidence, disclose informants, admit post-arrest threat evidence, or in admitting co-conspirator statements.
-
903 F.2d 16·
D.C. Cir.·
1990-05-15
·cited 30×
The court held that the admission of expert testimony regarding the "takeover" of the drug market by Jamaicans and the prosecutor's summation remarks linking appellants to this takeover were improper and prejudicial, requiring reversal of convictions.
-
719 F.2d 1183·
1st Cir.·
1983-10-19
·cited 27×
The court affirmed the convictions, finding that the defendants' objections regarding collateral estoppel, hypothetical questions, Brady violations, and prosecutorial misconduct were unpersuasive.
-
855 F.2d 327·
6th Cir.·
1988-08-24
·cited 24×
The court held that the defendant was properly indicted for conspiracy to distribute a Schedule II controlled substance and that the district court did not err in admitting testimony about alleged illicit transactions without scientific proof of the substance's identity.
-
710 F.2d 1551·
Fed. Cir.·
1983-06-27
·cited 20×
The dissenting judge argues that the trial court erred by excluding relevant evidence regarding settlement offers and licenses, and by improperly calculating the royalty rate based on lost combine sales.
-
602 F.2d 1248·
7th Cir.·
1979-08-09
·cited 18×
The court held that the trial judge's conduct and evidentiary rulings, including the admission of certain memoranda and the refusal to give a specific jury instruction, did not prejudice the defendant and affirmed the conviction.
-
888 F.2d 1165·
7th Cir.·
1989-11-01
·cited 16×
The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of a motorcycle gang, admitting rebuttal testimony regarding prior drug discussions, denying a severance motion, or refusing a multiple conspiracy instruction.
-
693 F.2d 189·
D.C. Cir.·
1982-11-12
·cited 16×
The court held that the admission of extrinsic evidence to show a plan or scheme, and the timing of the limiting instruction, did not constitute reversible error because the appellant was not substantially prejudiced.
-
780 F.2d 425·
4th Cir.·
1985-12-23
·cited 12×
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the admission of photographs, restrictions on a self-represented defendant's movements, the government's use of peremptory challenges, the admission of grand jury testimony, the admissibility of co-conspirator statements, and the e
-
960 F.3d 1319·
11th Cir.·
2020-06-03
·cited 11×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of a firearm found near PII, as it was relevant to establishing possession and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
-
872 F.2d 582·
5th Cir.·
1989-04-25
·cited 10×
The court held that the district court erred in admitting a substantial amount of irrelevant, cumulative, and prejudicial evidence, which impermissibly affected the substantial rights of the defendants.
-
763 F.2d 1401·
11th Cir.·
1985-06-25
·cited 8×
The court held that the district court erred in suppressing depositions obtained in a civil suit, as the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause did not bar their use in a subsequent criminal trial under these circumstance
-
574 F.2d 1320·
5th Cir.·
1978-06-14
·cited 8×
The court held that telephone directories were admissible as relevant evidence because they tended to make the nonexistence of a business more probable, thus supporting the inference that the defendant's explanation was false.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-04-18
·cited 1×
The court granted in part and denied in part Nestlé's Omnibus Motion in Limine, excluding certain evidence related to service agreement invoices and employee performance reviews while allowing evidence of set-off and limiting broad characterizations of employee conduct.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-06-30
Plaintiffs sued Tesla over a 2019 collision in which a Tesla Model S using Autopilot struck a parked vehicle, killing one plaintiff and injuring another; the case proceeded to trial on defective design and failure-to-warn claims after the court granted summary judgment on two oth
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-04-14
The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' motions in limine, ruling on the admissibility of evidence for an upcoming trial.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-01-20
The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' motions in limine, ruling on the admissibility of various categories of evidence and arguments for an upcoming trial.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-08-28
The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' joint motion in limine, ruling on the admissibility of various pieces of evidence and arguments.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-07-09
The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' joint motions in limine, ruling on the admissibility of various categories of evidence and testimony.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-02-01
The court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motions in limine, and denied Defendant's motion in limine, allowing experts to rely on a lab report under Rule 703 and permitting a witness to testify about her own medical condition.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-11-10
The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' motions in limine, ruling on the admissibility of various pieces of evidence and expert testimony.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-10-19
The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' motions in limine, ruling on the admissibility of evidence concerning prior lawsuits, other business entities, and the plaintiff's personal conduct.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-11-15
The court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion in limine, allowing certain evidence while excluding others based on relevance and admissibility rules.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-04-27
The court denied Defendant's motion to limit treating physicians' testimony and granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motions in limine, allowing some evidence while excluding others based on relevance and prejudice.
-
999 F.2d 1290·
8th Cir.·
1993-07-30
The court affirmed the defendants' convictions, holding that the government sufficiently pleaded and proved lack of union authorization, and that the exclusion of expert testimony was proper.
-
981 F.2d 1083·
9th Cir.·
1992-12-16
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of another individual's arrest and gun possession, nor did it err in denying the motion to suppress or in its comments to the jury.