Federal Rule Of Evidence 403

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

• Geitz v. Lindsey
  893 F.2d 148· 7th Cir.· 1990-01-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting limited evidence of the plaintiff's pending charges and prior convictions to show the defendants' state of mind and the reasonableness of their actions.
• United States v. Blanton
  884 F.2d 973· 7th Cir.· 1989-09-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of circumstantial evidence (Government Exhibits 5 and 6) was proper as it was relevant to the identity and weight of the drugs in question and not unduly prejudicial, and that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendants.
• United States v. Mann
  884 F.2d 532· 10th Cir.· 1989-08-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient for mail fraud convictions but insufficient for wire fraud. It also reversed convictions for willful failure to file due to an erroneous jury instruction on the good faith defense.
• United States v. Traitz
  871 F.2d 368· 3d Cir.· 1989-03-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the absence of a page from an electronic surveillance order does not render it facially insufficient if the agency and authorizing official are otherwise identifiable, and that the jury instructions regarding the Hobbs Act and advice of counsel defenses were p
• United States v. Piva
  870 F.2d 753· 1st Cir.· 1989-03-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that even if the jury instructions on conspiracy withdrawal were erroneous, the error was harmless because the defendant failed to present sufficient evidence of withdrawal. The court also held that prior consistent statements of an informant were admissible to reb
• United States v. Harrod
  856 F.2d 996· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that evidence of prior similar acts is admissible to prove intent and knowledge in specific intent crimes, even if the defendant does not explicitly dispute intent, provided the evidence meets the requirements of Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403.
• United States v. Lail
  846 F.2d 1299· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that evidence of an extrinsic bank robbery was improperly admitted under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) because the dissimilarities between the crimes did not establish a modus operandi for identity purposes. The error was not harmless.
• Hicks v. Mickelson
  835 F.2d 721· 8th Cir.· 1987-12-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting voir dire, excluding evidence of a post-divorce business sale, or in its other rulings, affirming the judgment.
• Hale v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
  820 F.2d 928· 8th Cir.· 1987-06-04 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the videotape demonstration and evidence of other accidents, but that the punitive damages award was excessive and required a remittitur or a new trial.
• United States v. Hutchins
  818 F.2d 322· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-19 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the convictions of James and Philip Hutchins but vacated their sentences, remanding for resentencing under the correct statutory provisions in effect at the time of the offenses.
• United States v. Williams
  816 F.2d 1527· 11th Cir.· 1987-05-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial based on newly discovered alibi evidence and in admitting extrinsic evidence of similar acts (rapes) to prove intent.
• Bradbury v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
  815 F.2d 1356· 10th Cir.· 1987-04-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that Desert Drilling Company was an agent of Phillips, making Phillips vicariously liable for the actions of Desert Drilling's employees, and that evidence of prior settlements and incidents was admissible for p
• Weir v. Fed. Ins. Co.
  811 F.2d 1387· 10th Cir.· 1987-02-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the defense of product misuse and by improperly instructing the jury on the elements of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, requiring reversal and remand for a new trial.
• Hannah v. City OF Overland
  795 F.2d 1385· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in excluding alibi evidence, deposition testimony, or denying leave to amend, and that any error in admitting prior convictions was harmless.
• United States v. Schwartz
  790 F.2d 1059· 3d Cir.· 1986-05-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts was an abuse of discretion, as its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, requiring reversal.
• Williams v. Union Carbide Corp.
  790 F.2d 552· 6th Cir.· 1986-05-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in limiting the defendant's examination concerning a prior lawsuit, which affected the substantive rights of the parties and requires reversal. It also held that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's punitive damages aw
• United States v. Allen
  787 F.2d 933· 4th Cir.· 1986-04-08 ·cited 18×
  Lay opinion testimony identifying defendants in surveillance photographs is admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 701 if rationally based on the witness's perception and helpful to the jury, and not unfairly prejudicial under Fed.R.Evid. 403, even if the witness is a law enforcement offic
• United States v. Ebner
  782 F.2d 1120· 2d Cir.· 1986-01-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence, denying severance, or in its evidentiary rulings, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• Ijya Tulloss v. Near N. Montessori Sch., Inc.
  776 F.2d 150· 7th Cir.· 1985-10-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to admit the EEOC's determination of reasonable cause and investigative file, nor in its findings regarding the plaintiff's prima facie case and the defendant's non-discriminatory reasons for termination.
• Bennett v. Longacre
  774 F.2d 1024· 10th Cir.· 1985-10-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding extrinsic evidence of the defendant's prior misconduct for impeachment purposes and that the jury's damage award was supported by competent evidence.
• United States v. Darryl "Monk" Reynolds (84-5697)
  762 F.2d 489· 6th Cir.· 1985-05-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the videotaped conversation was admissible and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, affirming the district court's judgment.
• United States v. Belony Saintil and Kersazan Tacius
  753 F.2d 984· 11th Cir.· 1985-02-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting testimony of atrocities to prove control of the vessel and in considering such evidence at sentencing. The court also declined to decide the prosecutorial vindictiveness issue.
• United States v. McCONNELL
  749 F.2d 1441· 10th Cir.· 1984-12-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance motions and that the issue of threatened cross-examination was not preserved for appeal.
• United States v. Williams
  739 F.2d 297· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the prosecutor's comment on the defendant's failure to call a witness and the admission of testimony about the defendant's nickname 'Fast Eddie' constituted reversible error.
• Tamala Jo Ryan v. McDONOUGH Power Equip., Inc.
  734 F.2d 385· 8th Cir.· 1984-05-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial based on the weight of the evidence and in including third-party defendants in that new trial, and that the exclusion of certain evidence and a jury instruction in the second trial was not
• The Am. Bearing Co., Inc. v. Litton Indus., Inc.
  729 F.2d 943· 3d Cir.· 1984-03-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court properly granted a new trial because the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a relevant product market and causation in fact for its antitrust claims.
• United States v. MAY
  727 F.2d 764· 8th Cir.· 1984-02-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in striking defense evidence and jury instructions concerning duress and impeachment, as the evidence was insufficient to support the duress defense and the impeachment evidence was inadmissible.
• United States v. Toner
  728 F.2d 115· 2d Cir.· 1984-02-14 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no merit in the appellants' numerous arguments regarding insufficient evidence, unfair trial, improper jury instructions, and due process violations.
• United States v. Yagih Aboumoussallem
  726 F.2d 906· 2d Cir.· 1984-01-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a federal prosecution following a state acquittal does not violate double jeopardy under the dual sovereignty doctrine, and that the trial court did not err in admitting co-conspirator statements or excluding evidence of prior similar acts by co-conspirators.
• United States v. Carruth
  699 F.2d 1017· 9th Cir.· 1983-02-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendants' claims of prejudice due to pre-indictment delay were unfounded, and that the evidence was sufficient to support their convictions for conspiracy to defraud the United States.
• Staniewicz v. Beecham, Inc.
  687 F.2d 526· 1st Cir.· 1982-09-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in excluding a magazine article or admitting audit testimony, and that the jury instructions were adequate.
• United States v. Andrini
  685 F.2d 1094· 9th Cir.· 1982-08-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the construction of a commercial office building using out-of-state materials satisfies the interstate commerce requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), and that evidence of the defendant's knowledge of fire-starting techniques was admissible under Federal Rule of E
• Bryant v. Consol. Rail Corp.
  672 F.2d 217· 1st Cir.· 1982-02-18 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the appellant's failure to object to alleged misconduct and evidentiary issues at trial barred him from raising them on appeal, and that the admitted evidence was either cumulative or not reversible error.
• Garcia v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  657 F.2d 652· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-19 ·cited 18×
• United States v. Alton Wayne Moore
  653 F.2d 384· 9th Cir.· 1981-08-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the prosecution was not vindictive, the speedy trial rights were not violated, the admission of the Belize conviction was not grounds for appeal, the Allen charge was proper, and the consecutive sentences were appropriate.
• United States v. Biondich
  652 F.2d 743· 8th Cir.· 1981-06-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the warrantless search of trash was lawful, the search warrant was valid, evidence of prior convictions was properly admitted, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Barletta
  652 F.2d 218· 1st Cir.· 1981-06-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the tape recording due to undue prejudice outweighing its probative value.
• Kerry Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers OF Am.
  637 F.2d 957· 3d Cir.· 1981-01-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a union and its members could be held liable for damages under Section 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act and Pennsylvania law for engaging in secondary picketing and interference with business relationships, and that the evidence supported the jury's v
• United States v. Johnson
  634 F.2d 735· 4th Cir.· 1980-11-12 ·cited 18×
  The court should grant a new trial due to the admission of inadmissible hearsay evidence.
• United States v. Yukio Uramoto
  638 F.2d 84· 9th Cir.· 1980-11-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in restricting cross-examination of a government witness regarding prior threats made by the witness, as this limitation impermissibly denied the defendant his Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses.
• In re AIR Crash Disaster AT John F. Kennedy Int'l Airport ON June 24
  635 F.2d 67· 2d Cir.· 1980-10-06 ·cited 18×
  The trial court did not err in excluding certain facts as stipulated, as the circumstances surrounding their admission and the parties' positions had changed due to the government's settlement.
• United States v. DeVINCENT
  632 F.2d 147· 1st Cir.· 1980-09-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding the defendant's reputation and prior acts was proper, and the jury instructions on reasonable doubt were not reversible error.
• United States v. Vandetti
  623 F.2d 1144· 6th Cir.· 1980-06-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that admitting evidence of codefendants' prior convictions was prejudicial error, requiring reversal and remand for a new trial.
• United States v. Kerby K. Keller
  624 F.2d 1154· 3d Cir.· 1980-05-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars the government from introducing evidence of criminal conduct for which the defendant had previously been acquitted.
• United States v. Hanson
  618 F.2d 1261· 8th Cir.· 1980-04-01 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of justification, in its instructions regarding assault and intoxication, or in its handling of lesser included offenses, cross-examination, voir dire, and
• United States v. Dunbar
  614 F.2d 39· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-28 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions for distributing controlled substances, finding no merit in his challenges to the statute, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or the denial of his motion for acquittal.
• United States v. Blevinal
  607 F.2d 1124· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court's supplemental jury instruction was not impermissibly coercive and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Lopez
  611 F.2d 44· 4th Cir.· 1979-11-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding a witness's psychiatric history and in allowing the late introduction of a stipulation into evidence.
• Harless v. Boyle-Midway Division
  594 F.2d 1051· 5th Cir.· 1979-05-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding rebuttal evidence regarding the effectiveness of a new warning label and in its jury instructions concerning the defense of the decedent's negligence. The court also found that evidence of the decedent's marijuana use was und
• Pollard v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
  598 F.2d 1284· 3d Cir.· 1979-05-08 ·cited 18×
  The Federal Rules of Evidence govern the admissibility of documentary evidence in federal diversity cases, and the trial judge's limitation on admitting documents was not manifestly erroneous.