Federal Rule Of Evidence 403

2,249 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. McDONALD
  935 F.2d 1212· 11th Cir.· 1991-07-17 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions for conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute were supported by sufficient evidence and that various procedural and sentencing issues raised on appeal lacked merit.
• CSX Transp., Inc. v. Whittler
  584 So. 2d 579· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-07-17 ·cited 32×
  CSX Transportation and the City of West Palm Beach appealed a jury verdict awarding damages to Jerry Whittier for injuries sustained when he was struck by a city van while working at a garage. The court affirmed, holding that the city's negligent placement of a dumpster on the pu
• In re Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litigation. Brown v. Monsanto Co.
  916 F.2d 829· 3d Cir.· 1990-09-20 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court erred in its evidentiary rulings by applying too stringent a standard for expert qualification and improperly applying the Downing test, leading to an improper grant of summary judgment.
• United States v. Ira Glen Anthony Walters
  904 F.2d 765· 1st Cir.· 1990-05-31 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the admission of a photograph of a defendant holding a firearm was proper under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) and 403, and that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for drug conspiracy and related offenses.
• United States v. De La Cruz
  902 F.2d 121· 1st Cir.· 1990-04-25 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the conviction, except for the issue of jury empanelment by a magistrate, which was remanded for further proceedings.
• United States v. Ferrer-Cruz
  899 F.2d 135· 1st Cir.· 1990-03-30 ·cited 32×
  The court held that admitting evidence of prior drug convictions was an error because it was unfairly prejudicial and not properly admissible under Rule 404(b).
• Specht v. Jensen
  853 F.2d 805· 10th Cir.· 1988-08-03 ·cited 32×
  An attorney, called as an expert witness, cannot state his views of the law governing the verdict or opine whether a defendant's conduct violated that law, as such testimony is beyond the scope of Fed.R.Evid. 702 and usurps the court's function.
• United States v. Vest
  842 F.2d 1319· 1st Cir.· 1988-03-21 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not commit reversible error in admitting 'bad acts' evidence or prior consistent statements, and affirmed the conviction.
• United States v. WYK
  840 F.2d 494· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-19 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting co-conspirator statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) because sufficient independent evidence established the conspiracy and the defendant's participation.
• United States v. Martinez
  836 F.2d 684· 1st Cir.· 1988-01-13 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction for perjury on Count 27 must be reversed because his statement was literally true, but affirmed the convictions on other counts and the conspiracy conviction.
• Reichman v. Bonsignore
  818 F.2d 278· 2d Cir.· 1987-05-11 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that sufficient evidence supported findings of ADEA and ERISA violations, that liquidated damages and prejudgment interest were properly awarded, and that attorney's fees and costs were reasonable.
• United States v. LeFEVOUR
  798 F.2d 977· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-14 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in excluding defense evidence or admitting prosecution evidence, and that the trial was fair despite defense counsel's tactics.
• United States v. Vretta
  790 F.2d 651· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-13 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Mark Hauser's death and Vretta's threats against Allen Hauser, as the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect and the evidence was admissible under hearsay exceptions.
• United States v. Lavelle
  751 F.2d 1266· D.C. Cir.· 1985-01-18 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination of EPA attorneys, limiting direct examination of the appellant, or admitting evidence of other bad acts.
• United States v. Moore
  732 F.2d 983· D.C. Cir.· 1984-04-27 ·cited 32×
  The admission of 'bad acts' testimony was proper because it was relevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) for proving intent and rebutting entrapment, and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
• Francis and Barbara Breidor v. Sears
  722 F.2d 1134· 3d Cir.· 1983-12-09 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by erroneously excluding expert testimony regarding the probable cause of a refrigerator malfunction that allegedly caused a fire, and that this exclusion affected the plaintiffs' substantial rights.
• Fitzgerald v. United States
  719 F.2d 1069· 10th Cir.· 1983-10-25 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for possession with intent to distribute, and the trial court did not err in admitting evidence or denying a lesser included offense instruction.
• United States v. Russell
  717 F.2d 518· 11th Cir.· 1983-10-17 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying a continuance for defense counsel to present testimony on a collateral issue, nor in refusing a requested jury instruction that was more of a jury argument.
• United States v. Crosby
  713 F.2d 1066· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-18 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the kidnapping conviction, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings or in refusing to qualify a witness as an expert.
• United States v. Turpin
  707 F.2d 332· 8th Cir.· 1983-05-06 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence, admitting other crimes evidence, refusing a jury instruction, or denying the motion for judgment of acquittal, and that the cumulative impact of alleged errors did not deny a fair trial
• United States v. Morano
  697 F.2d 923· 11th Cir.· 1983-02-10 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of another arsonist's convictions and modus operandi.
• United States v. Marvin
  687 F.2d 1221· 8th Cir.· 1982-09-03 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the statute 7 U.S.C. § 2024(b) requires proof that the defendant knew his actions were unlawful, not just that he knew he was acquiring food stamps. Therefore, the conviction on Count I, which lacked a proper jury instruction on this specific intent, is revers
• United States v. Hadaway
  681 F.2d 214· 4th Cir.· 1982-06-10 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of a criminal defendant's similar bad acts, even if relevant for intent, was improper when it served only to show propensity and was unduly prejudicial.
• F & S Offshore, Inc. v. K.O. Steel Castings, Inc.
  662 F.2d 1104· 5th Cir.· 1981-11-09 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the admission of expert testimony regarding the shackle's twisted position did not constitute unfair surprise or reversible error, and that sufficient evidence supported the trial court's judgment.
• United States v. Davis
  657 F.2d 637· 4th Cir.· 1981-08-27 ·cited 32×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in admitting remote and prejudicial testimony regarding past drug sales, this error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt.
• United States v. Bruner
  657 F.2d 1278· D.C. Cir.· 1981-06-23 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the admission of prescriptions under the business records exception or coconspirator rule was proper, and that the failure to give immediate limiting instructions on prior inconsistent statements was not prejudicial error.
• United States v. Pisari
  636 F.2d 855· 1st Cir.· 1981-01-07 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding the defendant's prior robbery, solely to impeach his credibility by suggesting he lied about committing a similar crime, was improper and not harmless error.
• Oberst v. Int'l Harvester Co., Inc.
  640 F.2d 863· 7th Cir.· 1980-09-19 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding the commercial availability of alternative bunk restraints was harmless error, as other evidence presented strongly implied such availability and the feasibility of alternatives was not controverted.
• United States v. Bettencourt
  614 F.2d 214· 9th Cir.· 1980-02-22 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the erroneous admission of evidence concerning a prior expunged arrest was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, and that the jury instructions correctly tracked the statutory language.
• United States v. Johnson
  605 F.2d 1025· 7th Cir.· 1979-09-17 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a jury instruction on entrapment failing to specifically place the burden of proof on the government is deficient and warrants reversal.
• United States v. McDANIEL
  574 F.2d 1224· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-12 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the warrantless seizure of a briefcase from an airline, after a private search by airline personnel, did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and the admission of related evidence was proper.
• United States v. Cavender
  578 F.2d 528· 4th Cir.· 1978-06-07 ·cited 32×
  The court held that Federal Rule of Evidence 609(b) requires a district court to make specific findings, supported by articulated facts and circumstances, that the probative value of a conviction more than ten years old substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect before admitt
• United States v. Riley
  550 F.2d 233· 5th Cir.· 1977-04-07 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding the bank's custom and practice of issuing cashier's checks without contemporaneous payment was reversible error because it was relevant to the defendant's intent.
• Brink's Inc. v. The City OF NEW York
  717 F.2d 700· 2d Cir.· 1983-09-06 ·cited 31×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict and damage awards, finding sufficient evidence for punitive damages and upholding the trial court's rulings on evidentiary matters and jury instructions.
• JAY Edwards, Inc. v. NEW England Toyota Distrib., Inc.
  708 F.2d 814· 1st Cir.· 1983-05-19 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the jury's award for damages during the period the defendant was the distributor was supported by sufficient evidence, but the award for damages after the defendant ceased to be the distributor could not stand due to insufficient evidence and a timely objectio
• United States v. Ible
  630 F.2d 389· 5th Cir.· 1980-11-14 ·cited 31×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding no error in the trial judge's conduct of voir dire.
• United States v. Brannon
  616 F.2d 413· 9th Cir.· 1980-03-10 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the flourishing or pointing of a pistol, loaded or not, constitutes a threat of bodily harm coupled with the present ability to commit violent injury, and thus the district court did not err in its jury instruction.
• United States v. Gennie Lynn Brown
  608 F.2d 551· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-17 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the Assimilative Crimes Act was properly used, but reversed the conviction due to the erroneous admission of evidence of prior injuries.
• United States v. Cady
  567 F.2d 771· 8th Cir.· 1977-12-09 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for mail fraud and conspiracy, and that the grand jury presentation did not deprive the appellant of due process.
• Archangel Angelo v. Bacharach Instrument Co.
  555 F.2d 1164· 3d Cir.· 1977-05-10 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to support an inference that the jobs of Bench Assemblers and Heavy Assemblers were substantially equal in content, skill, effort, and responsibility, as required by the Equal Pay Act.
• Delisle v. Crane Co.
  258 So. 3d 1219· Fla.· 2018-10-15 ·cited 30×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a 2013 legislative amendment to section 90.702 of the Florida Evidence Code, which replaced the Frye test with the Daubert standard for expert testimony, was unconstitutional as an infringement on the Court's rulemaking authority. The Court rea
• United States v. Carter
  953 F.2d 1449· 5th Cir.· 1992-02-12 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding sufficient evidence for conspiracy and possession, and that evidentiary rulings and sentencing enhancements were proper.
• United States v. Fabio Rodriguez Cortes
  949 F.2d 532· 1st Cir.· 1991-11-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that admitting a defendant's identification card based on ethnic stereotypes was an abuse of discretion requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Wood
  924 F.2d 399· 1st Cir.· 1991-02-01 ·cited 30×
  The court held that evidence of prior drug transactions was admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) and that the admission of a letter, even if erroneous, constituted harmless error. However, the court found that one uncharged drug transaction was improperly included in calculating t
• United States v. Roark
  924 F.2d 1426· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-30 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the government's failure to produce Jencks Act material and its improper injection of the defendant's association with the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Jenkins
  904 F.2d 549· 10th Cir.· 1990-05-31 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that sufficient evidence supported the continuing criminal enterprise charge, evidentiary rulings were proper, severance was not required, bifurcation of forfeiture was not plain error absent a request, and there was no grand jury abuse.
• United States v. DOE
  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.
• United States v. Quintero
  872 F.2d 107· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-18 ·cited 30×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in treating 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) as creating a separate offense and admitting evidence of prior convictions to the jury, this error was harmless. The court also affirmed the denial of severance and the admission of limited heroin e
• Estes v. Dick Smith Ford, Inc.
  856 F.2d 1097· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-09 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence showing a pattern of race and age bias, and the admission of an EEOC determination letter, were prejudicial errors requiring a new trial on discrimination claims. The directed verdict on the fraud claim was affirmed.
• Honeywell, Inc. v. Am. Standards Testing Bureau, Inc.
  851 F.2d 652· 3d Cir.· 1988-06-29 ·cited 30×
  The court held that expert testimony is sufficient to prove causation in a negligence action and that alleged deficiencies in defense counsel's representation do not constitute a superseding cause of the plaintiff's loss.