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. Perez
  849 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1988-06-03 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the admission of prior bad act evidence was an error that was not harmless, requiring vacatur of the conviction.
• United States v. Kaplan
  832 F.2d 676· 1st Cir.· 1987-11-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of mail fraud and that the jury instructions and evidentiary rulings were not reversible error.
• In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig. MDL NO. 381
  818 F.2d 187· 2d Cir.· 1987-04-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the military contractor defense shields contractors from liability for injuries caused by government-ordered military products if the government was informed of known hazards or possessed equal knowledge.
• United States v. Ellison M. Stockton
  788 F.2d 210· 4th Cir.· 1986-04-09 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the jury instructions adequately conveyed the elements of embezzlement under 29 U.S.C. § 501(c), there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, and the admission of certain testimony and denial of a new trial were not erroneous.
• Almus Wilson v. City OF Aliceville
  779 F.2d 631· 11th Cir.· 1986-01-10 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court erred in refusing to admit a witness's prior statement and testimony as direct evidence of racial discrimination, and that such evidence, if credible, could have established the plaintiff's claim.
• United States v. Martinez
  775 F.2d 31· 2d Cir.· 1985-10-03 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish an attempt to murder, that the jury's verdict was not inconsistent, and that the admission of evidence of guilty pleas by prison guards was proper.
• United States v. Ira Blackwood
  768 F.2d 131· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-11 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for racketeering and extortion under the Hobbs Act, and that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or in its handling of the government's closing argument.
• United States v. Barrett
  766 F.2d 609· 1st Cir.· 1985-06-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, evidentiary rulings were proper, and jury instructions were not erroneously refused.
• United States v. Garza
  754 F.2d 1202· 5th Cir.· 1985-02-26 ·cited 30×
  The court held that while the errors below were harmless, the extended detention periods without a probable cause determination violated the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, collateral estoppel may apply to overt acts in a conspiracy case if specific intent was necessarily decided
• United States v. Estrada
  751 F.2d 128· 2d Cir.· 1984-12-26 ·cited 30×
  The court's opinion is concurred with, but the precise effect of joining lesser convictions with a greater conviction is unclear.
• United States v. Wilson
  721 F.2d 967· 4th Cir.· 1983-11-04 ·cited 30×
  The court held that convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(b) and 22 U.S.C. § 2778 were multiplicitous, violating double jeopardy, and thus vacated sentences for these counts. Other convictions were affirmed.
• United States v. Pugliese
  712 F.2d 1574· 2d Cir.· 1983-07-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that expert testimony on heroin use was admissible and that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendants of conspiracy and drug offenses.
• United States v. Ray T. Davis (80-5015) & Raymond Wallace (80-5023)
  707 F.2d 880· 6th Cir.· 1983-05-13 ·cited 30×
  Joinder of defendants under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(b) is improper if based solely on a substantive RICO count without evidence of connection between the various predicate acts or defendant's participation in the full scope of racketeering.
• Czajka v. Hickman
  703 F.2d 317· 8th Cir.· 1983-03-30 ·cited 30×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in failing to balance the probative value against the prejudicial effect of admitting prior convictions for impeachment, the error was harmless given other impeachment evidence. The court also found no abuse of discretion in excludi
• United States v. McCRARY
  699 F.2d 1308· 11th Cir.· 1983-03-18 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the defendant's conviction, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on variance, admission of evidence, sufficiency of evidence, or suppression of evidence.
• United States v. Burns
  668 F.2d 855· 5th Cir.· 1982-02-26 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the issue of newly discovered evidence was properly before the court despite the lack of a second notice of appeal, and that the district court did not err in denying the motion for a new trial.
• United States v. DE LA Torre
  634 F.2d 792· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-19 ·cited 30×
  Separate and distinct false declarations in trial testimony, requiring different factual proof of falsity, may properly be charged in separate counts, even if related to the same transaction.
• United States v. DeLOACH
  654 F.2d 763· D.C. Cir.· 1980-12-04 ·cited 30×
  The court noted that the prosecution's presentation of 'bad acts' testimony was improper, even though the conviction was affirmed.
• United States v. Stahl
  616 F.2d 30· 2d Cir.· 1980-01-22 ·cited 30×
  The court held that prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct, specifically appealing to class prejudice and making unsupported statements, deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
• United States v. Byers
  600 F.2d 1130· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-13 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the defendants lacked standing to challenge the searches of abandoned vessels and that the evidence presented was sufficient for conviction, including evidence of a prior offense and an overt act.
• United States v. Milhollan
  599 F.2d 518· 3d Cir.· 1979-03-12 ·cited 30×
  The dissenting opinion argues that the warrantless search of the satchel and the automobile violated the Fourth Amendment, as there was no probable cause or exigent circumstances to justify the searches.
• Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival & Research Ctr., Inc.
  588 F.2d 626· 8th Cir.· 1978-12-11 ·cited 30×
  Statements made by an agent or employee concerning a matter within the scope of their employment are admissible against the principal or employer under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D), even if not based on personal knowledge.
• United States v. D'Alora
  585 F.2d 16· 1st Cir.· 1978-10-05 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the admission of marked money from a prior drug transaction was proper under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) and 403, and that the denial of a mistrial and the rejection of the jury panel challenge were also correct.
• United States v. Espinoza
  578 F.2d 224· 9th Cir.· 1978-05-01 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of a prior similar act and that the stop of the truck was based on reasonable suspicion.
• United States v. Verne Allen Lyon
  567 F.2d 777· 8th Cir.· 1977-12-09 ·cited 30×
  The court held that evidence seized under a search warrant must be suppressed because the affidavit supporting the warrant failed to establish probable cause. The court affirmed the bail jumping conviction.
• United States v. Oakes
  565 F.2d 170· 1st Cir.· 1977-11-04 ·cited 30×
  The court held that whether to rule in advance on the admissibility of prior convictions for impeachment is within the district court's discretion, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the defendant's prior manslaughter conviction.
• Contemporary Mission, Inc. v. Famous Music Corp.
  557 F.2d 918· 2d Cir.· 1977-05-18 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the notice provided did not comply with the contract's thirty-day cure period, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain evidence.
• United States v. Bailey
  537 F.2d 845· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-27 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the statute must be enforced as written, even if its interpretation renders it unreasonable or incoherent.
• United States v. Gomez-Norena
  908 F.2d 497· 9th Cir.· 1990-07-12 ·cited 29×
  The court held that admitting drug courier profile testimony for background and expert testimony on intent to distribute was not plain error, as the defendant failed to properly preserve objections.
• State v. Diamond
  553 So. 2d 1185· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-12-28 ·cited 29×
  The State of Florida petitioned for certiorari to review a trial court order conditioning the prosecution of sexual battery charges on the complainant child witnesses' voluntary consent to physical examination by the defendant's gynecologist. The appellate court upheld the trial
• Jones v. Counselor Hamelman
  869 F.2d 1023· 7th Cir.· 1989-02-22 ·cited 29×
  The magistrate did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion to amend the complaint, excluding certain testimony, or denying the inmate's presence at trial, and the factual findings were not clearly erroneous.
• United States v. Brodie
  858 F.2d 492· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-21 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a mistrial due to extrinsic material in the jury room, excluding expert testimony, and refusing a jury instruction on property transmutation.
• F.H. Krear & Co. v. Nineteen Named Trustees
  810 F.2d 1250· 2d Cir.· 1987-01-20 ·cited 29×
  The court affirmed the damage awards for breach of contract but vacated the attorneys' fees award, remanding for a recalculation based on specific conditions.
• United States v. Vreeken
  803 F.2d 1085· 10th Cir.· 1986-10-21 ·cited 29×
  The court held that Kurt Vreeken waived his rule of speciality claim by failing to raise it timely, and that other alleged errors, including the exclusion of evidence and jury instructions, were either harmless or within the trial court's discretion.
• United States v. Wilson
  798 F.2d 509· 1st Cir.· 1986-07-30 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the admission of the 'Greenman Memo' was proper and that the exclusion of evidence related to a 1982 stock buyout was not an abuse of discretion, as it lacked foundational relevance to the defendant's intent during the indictment years.
• In re AIR Crash Disaster Near NEW Orleans v. PAN Am. World Airways, Inc.
  767 F.2d 1151· 5th Cir.· 1985-08-12 ·cited 29×
  The court held that while some damage awards were excessive and reversed them, others were affirmed, and a new trial was granted on specific claims unless a remittitur was accepted.
• Donovan v. Burger King Corp.
  672 F.2d 221· 1st Cir.· 1982-02-22 ·cited 29×
  The court held that assistant managers earning at least $250/week have management as their primary duty and are not exempt from FLSA overtime pay, but that the injunction against Burger King was overly broad in its geographic scope.
• United States v. Walker
  613 F.2d 1349· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-20 ·cited 29×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient, the admission of witness testimony was proper, and closing arguments were not reversible error.
• United States v. Rubies
  612 F.2d 397· 9th Cir.· 1979-09-10 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the Coast Guard had the authority to board and search the stateless vessel HELENA STAR, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for conspiracy and attempt to import marijuana.
• John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Dutton
  585 F.2d 1289· 5th Cir.· 1978-12-11 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the jury's finding of accidental death was supported by evidence and that the trial court did not err in admitting certain testimony or a tape recording. The court also affirmed the trial court's determination of the insurance policy beneficiary.
• City OF Orlando v. Pineiro
  66 So. 3d 1064· Fla. 5th DCA· 2011-08-05 ·cited 28×
  The City of Orlando appeals a wrongful death verdict finding it 55% responsible for a young man's death caused by a police pursuit. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial based primarily on improper closing arguments by plaintiff's counsel, including inflammato
• United States v. Anderson
  933 F.2d 1261· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-07 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the admissibility of evidence of prior fires at the defendant's factory could not be determined on the record due to the trial court's failure to properly apply the Beechum test and Rule 104(b) regarding conditional relevancy.
• United States v. Skillman
  922 F.2d 1370· 9th Cir.· 1990-09-14 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the conviction but remanded for reconsideration of the sentence, finding the district court erred in granting a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
• Varhol v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.
  909 F.2d 1557· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-13 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred in considering an untimely Rule 59 motion for a new trial, as Rule 6(b) prohibits extensions of time for such motions, and the prior precedent allowing such consideration under unique circumstances (Eady v. Foerder) is overruled.
• United States v. Solis
  882 F.2d 693· 2d Cir.· 1989-08-15 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing, finding sufficient evidence for conviction but issues with the original sentencing under the Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. Haynes
  881 F.2d 586· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-11 ·cited 28×
  The court held that evidence of prior marijuana dealings was admissible to show intent and knowledge, the aiding and abetting instruction was proper for the schoolyard statute, and the sentencing enhancements were correctly applied.
• United States v. Colin Brooks Anderson
  879 F.2d 369· 8th Cir.· 1989-07-13 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed convictions for making false statements to the government and conspiring to defraud the United States, finding sufficient evidence and no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings or severance denials.
• McKinley Dudley v. Duckworth
  854 F.2d 967· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-08 ·cited 28×
  The admission of testimony regarding anonymous threats against a witness, without any evidence linking the defendant to the threats, was of such magnitude that it denied the petitioner fundamental fairness and violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights.
• United States v. DiCARO
  852 F.2d 259· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-15 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying 18 U.S.C. § 3147 to a defendant released on bond before the statute's effective date without prior notice of the enhanced penalties. The court affirmed the underlying convictions but vacated the sentence imposed under § 314
• United States Football League v. Nat'l Football League
  842 F.2d 1335· 2d Cir.· 1988-03-10 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the jury's findings were supported by the evidence and that the USFL's claims of antitrust violations and predatory conduct by the NFL were not substantiated.