Federal Rule Of Evidence 403

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

• Wilmer B. GAY v. Petsock
  917 F.2d 768· 3d Cir.· 1990-10-26 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the plaintiff prisoner failed to state a claim against one defendant, presented insufficient evidence for claims against two others, and that the jury's verdict for the final defendant was permissible.
• Kowalski v. Gagne
  914 F.2d 299· 1st Cir.· 1990-09-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a prior murder conviction can collaterally estop a defendant from contesting liability under the wrongful death statute and the applicability of an intentional act exclusion in an insurance policy. The court also affirmed the admission of the conviction as evi
• United States v. Maravilla
  907 F.2d 216· 1st Cir.· 1990-06-28 ·cited 6×
• United States v. Arnold
  890 F.2d 825· 6th Cir.· 1989-11-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing cross-examination of an alibi witness regarding prior drug dealings for impeachment purposes, nor was the defendant unfairly prejudiced by evidence of a later marijuana transaction or the handling of
• Underwood v. Colonial Penn INS. Co.
  888 F.2d 588· 8th Cir.· 1989-11-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the insured's refusal to take a polygraph test, as it was admissible for impeachment and to show motive, and in denying a mistrial or new trial.
• Michael and Nancy Roberts v. Harnischfeger Corp.
  901 F.2d 42· 5th Cir.· 1989-09-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that evidence of subsequent design changes and unverified reports of other incidents were inadmissible to prove the crane was defective at the time of manufacture.
• Kinan v. City OF Brockton
  876 F.2d 1029· 1st Cir.· 1989-06-02 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the directed verdicts and jury findings, holding that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence, directing verdicts, or in its jury instructions.
• United States v. Bratton
  875 F.2d 439· 5th Cir.· 1989-05-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for aiding and abetting wire fraud and possession of stolen property, and that the admission of impeachment evidence was not an abuse of discretion.
• Northside Mercury Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
  871 F.2d 758· 8th Cir.· 1989-04-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding redacted financial statements and late-disclosed expert testimony, and that sufficient evidence existed to submit the tortious interference claim to the jury.
• United States v. Fryar
  867 F.2d 850· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a juror for lying, denying motions for mistrial and new trial, or in excluding evidence and refusing to disclose an informant's identity.
• United States v. Manso-Portes
  867 F.2d 422· 7th Cir.· 1989-02-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of "other acts" evidence under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) was proper, and the district court did not err in its sentencing or evidentiary rulings.
• Granberry v. O'Barr
  866 F.2d 112· 5th Cir.· 1988-12-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury verdict of no negligence was supported by the evidence and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination or refusing a jury instruction.
• United States v. Pilarinos
  864 F.2d 253· 2d Cir.· 1988-12-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant was not entitled to a derivative entrapment defense because the middlemen were not government agents and there was no evidence of government inducement, and that a statement made by the defendant's agent was admissible.
• Borunda v. Richmond
  885 F.2d 1384· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of prior acquittals and attorneys' fees incurred in the criminal case was not an abuse of discretion, and the denial of motions for nonsuit and directed verdict was proper.
• Hernandez v. Cepeda
  860 F.2d 260· 7th Cir.· 1988-10-14 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the trial court's decision because, despite egregious "harping" by defense counsel, the trial attorney failed to raise a specific objection on that issue, thus waiving it for appeal.
• United States v. Massuet
  851 F.2d 111· 4th Cir.· 1988-06-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while admitting testimony about the defendants' post-Miranda silence was error, it was harmless. The court also held that defendants could be resentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) despite being indicted under § 959(b)(2).
• Steele v. VAN Buren Pub. Sch. Dist.
  845 F.2d 1492· 8th Cir.· 1988-05-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the school district violated the First Amendment's establishment clause by permitting teacher-led prayer at mandatory school functions, and the case was not moot despite the teacher ceasing the practice and one student graduating.
• United States v. Gonzalez
  833 F.2d 1464· 11th Cir.· 1987-12-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of Gonzalez's confession was proper despite her ambiguous request for counsel, and that the admission of a business card against Zamora was harmless error due to overwhelming evidence.
• Abshire v. Walls
  830 F.2d 1277· 4th Cir.· 1987-10-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the reasonableness of the strip search was a jury question, and that the district court erred in limiting attorneys' fees by misinterpreting the relationship between Abshire's successful and unsuccessful claims.
• United States v. Gantzer
  810 F.2d 349· 2d Cir.· 1987-01-26 ·cited 6×
  The constitutional right to view obscene materials privately does not insulate a defendant from conviction for mailing obscene materials for private use.
• Shultz v. Bernard Rice, M.D.
  809 F.2d 643· 10th Cir.· 1986-12-19 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the jury verdict and denial of a new trial, finding no reversible errors in the district court's evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
• United States v. Huddleston
  802 F.2d 874· 6th Cir.· 1986-10-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of prior misconduct (sale of televisions) without clear and convincing proof that the televisions were stolen, as its prejudicial value outweighed its probative value.
• Dykes v. Raymark Indus., Inc.
  801 F.2d 810· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Tennessee's Contribution Among Tort-Feasors Act applies to punitive damages awarded for willful and wanton conduct, and that post-injury evidence can be relevant to infer pre-injury conduct. The court reversed the denial of set-off for punitive damages.
• United States v. Bueno-Risquet
  799 F.2d 804· 2d Cir.· 1986-08-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of testimony and request forms regarding missing heroin exhibits was proper, and that an erroneous jury instruction on anticipated profits was harmless error. The court affirmed the convictions.
• United States v. Short
  790 F.2d 464· 6th Cir.· 1986-05-05 ·cited 6×
  The court would remand for further proceedings to determine the admissibility of the defendant's statements, finding the trial court did not have an adequate opportunity to rule on the issues.
• United States v. Tager
  788 F.2d 349· 6th Cir.· 1986-04-10 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge believes the evidence does not support a conviction for securities fraud, as there was no false statement of fact inducing the broker to extend credit.
• Fathalla El-Meswari v. Wash. GAS Light Co.
  785 F.2d 483· 4th Cir.· 1986-03-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury should decide the issue of punitive damages, as the defendant's conduct may have evinced a conscious disregard for the safety of others under the Virginia wrongful death statute.
• United States v. Kerr
  778 F.2d 690· 11th Cir.· 1985-12-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of extrinsic evidence, used to show motive, was unduly prejudicial and violated the defendant Kerr's right to a fair trial, warranting a new trial for him.
• United States v. Scott
  767 F.2d 1308· 9th Cir.· 1985-08-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that evidence of prior similar acts was admissible to prove intent and that the defendant took a substantial step toward committing the crime of attempted possession with intent to distribute.
• Jones v. Officer David Collier and Officer Henry Mendoza
  762 F.2d 71· 8th Cir.· 1985-05-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant waived his objection to the admission of prior convictions by introducing them himself, and that the trial court did not err in denying a motion to recall a witness.
• United States v. Dorman
  752 F.2d 595· 11th Cir.· 1985-02-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Speedy Trial Act was not violated by the filing of a complaint in one district before the dismissal of a complaint in another, and that evidentiary rulings and sentencing were not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Garman
  748 F.2d 218· 4th Cir.· 1984-11-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that venue was proper in the District of Maryland and that the denial of a continuance to present cumulative evidence was not an abuse of discretion or a violation of the defendant's rights. The jury instructions regarding willfulness were also deemed proper.
• United States v. N. Am. Reporting, Inc.
  740 F.2d 50· D.C. Cir.· 1984-07-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse her discretion in excluding the defense's summary chart, but remanded for a proper determination of whether the prosecutor's notes were producible under the Jencks Act.
• Adams v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
  727 F.2d 533· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that evidence of an increased risk of future cancer is inadmissible when the plaintiff has not yet developed cancer, as the element of causation is lacking. The court also affirmed the denial of a new trial based on the jury's verdict having a reasonable basis in t
• United States v. Henry
  727 F.2d 1373· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-12 ·cited 6×
• United States v. Zenon
  711 F.2d 476· 1st Cir.· 1983-07-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that appellants' objections to the injunction were without merit, affirming the district court's decision.
• United States v. Thompson
  710 F.2d 915· 2d Cir.· 1983-06-14 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the denial of both the motion for a new trial and the motion to supplement the record, finding the proffered evidence immaterial and inadmissible.
• Joao DeMEBEIROS v. Koehring Co.
  709 F.2d 734· 1st Cir.· 1983-06-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a directed verdict for the manufacturer on negligent design, nor in admitting evidence of workmen's compensation benefits with a limiting instruction, but that the omission of an explanation regarding repayment of thos
• United States v. Sherill P. Landes
  704 F.2d 152· 5th Cir.· 1983-04-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the defendant to impeach government witnesses for bias, as the proffered evidence lacked logical support or was outweighed by prejudice.
• United States v. Boyer
  694 F.2d 58· 3d Cir.· 1982-11-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a material misstatement of fact made with reckless disregard of the facts can establish the specific intent required for mail fraud and securities fraud convictions.
• United States v. Sostarich
  684 F.2d 606· 8th Cir.· 1982-08-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying a mistrial when the government elicited testimony suggesting the defendant had been incarcerated, as this evidence was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial.
• Rovegno v. Geppert Bros., Inc.
  677 F.2d 327· 3d Cir.· 1982-05-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of the decedent's blood alcohol level because it was not accompanied by other evidence demonstrating unfitness to drive.
• United States v. Cole
  670 F.2d 35· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in refusing to allow testimony regarding alleged intimidation of witnesses, as it was not relevant to the charges and would have introduced collateral issues.
• United States v. Williams
  657 F.2d 199· 8th Cir.· 1981-08-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of prior bad acts testimony, jury instructions regarding the value of goods and dates, and the sufficiency of evidence were all proper, leading to an affirmance of the conviction.
• United States v. Williams
  639 F.2d 1311· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in excluding evidence offered to show the defendant was a creditor of the bank, nor did the court err in denying the motion to suppress bank records, and the indictment was sufficient to charge violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1014.
• United States v. Tecumseh
  630 F.2d 749· 10th Cir.· 1980-08-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting the defendant's confession and a prior threat, nor in its jury instruction regarding malice, as these rulings were supported by the evidence and established legal principles.
• United States v. Wyatt
  611 F.2d 568· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that admitting exhibits stamped 'counterfeit' with a cautionary instruction was not an abuse of discretion, and sufficient evidence supported the intent element for the convictions.
• Saladino v. Winkler
  609 F.2d 1211· 7th Cir.· 1979-10-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of evidence regarding the plaintiff's relationship with a witness, prior inconsistent statements, intoxication, and awareness of unlawful conduct was proper and did not deprive the plaintiff of a fair trial.
• Squyres v. Hilliary
  599 F.2d 918· 10th Cir.· 1979-05-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting the plaintiff's injury testimony, the deputy sheriffs' reputation testimony, or in denying the motion for a new trial.
• United States v. Gaby Habib Semaan
  594 F.2d 1215· 8th Cir.· 1979-03-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of prior misconduct, in its jury instructions, or in its handling of a jury question during deliberations.