Federal Rule Of Evidence 403

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

• Moylan v. The Meadow Club, Inc.
  979 F.2d 1246· 7th Cir.· 1992-11-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that evidence of an employee's failure to mention an overtime claim during severance negotiations was admissible for impeachment purposes, as it was relevant to the employee's credibility regarding his job duties and not an impermissible waiver of FLSA rights.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Peters
  978 F.2d 1162· 10th Cir.· 1992-10-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that SEC Rule 14e-3 does not require a breach of fiduciary duty and that the district court erred by refusing to permit cross-examination of character witnesses regarding prior fraud suits.
• Daniels v. State
  606 So. 2d 482· Fla. 5th DCA· 1992-10-16 ·cited 2×
  Randy Lee Daniels was convicted by jury of petty theft of school equipment based in part on inadmissible hearsay testimony from an anonymous informant. The Florida appellate court reversed the conviction, finding that the detailed out-of-court accusatory statements exceeded the b
• United States v. Xiomaro E. Hernandez
  975 F.2d 1035· 4th Cir.· 1992-09-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in admitting extraneous evidence of prior bad acts under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) because its probative value was slight and substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
• Marlin E. "Bill" Jones v. Rich Thompson
  974 F.2d 86· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence or refusing jury instructions, and affirmed the judgment.
• United States v. Acosta
  972 F.2d 86· 5th Cir.· 1992-08-27 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the jury's verdict, but vacated the sentence due to insufficient evidence for the upward adjustment.
• Gora v. Costa
  971 F.2d 1325· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Amelia Gora had standing to bring a Section 1983 claim based on the alleged wrongful entry into her home, and that while questioning about Edmund Gora's current incarceration exceeded impeachment limits, it was admissible for other purposes and not reversible
• Blancha v. Raymark Indus.
  972 F.2d 507· 3d Cir.· 1992-08-07 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge believes the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial due to prejudicial expert testimony.
• Kelly v. Crown Equip. Co.
  970 F.2d 1273· 3d Cir.· 1992-07-29 ·cited 2×
• United States v. Restrepo
  966 F.2d 964· 5th Cir.· 1992-07-21 ·cited 2×
  The court's majority opinion, which the concurring judge agrees with in methodology, found the warrant affidavit sufficient for probable cause after excluding illegally obtained information.
• United States v. Bonneau
  970 F.2d 929· 1st Cir.· 1992-07-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting the defendant's presentation of his defense regarding the unconstitutionality of tax laws and in admitting a letter containing potentially offensive language, as the limitations were reasonable and the evidence had some
• United States v. Cummins
  969 F.2d 223· 6th Cir.· 1992-07-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that evidence of drug dealing was admissible under Rule 404(b) to show motive and intent, and that the prosecutor's comments and the admission of such evidence did not constitute a material variance or deny a fair trial. The court also held that entrapment was a ju
• United States v. Muhammad Khan
  969 F.2d 218· 6th Cir.· 1992-07-14 ·cited 2×
  The Sentencing Guidelines do not permit an automatic increase in offense level based on an estimated fraud loss when the fraudulent activity could not have resulted in any actual loss.
• Sylvio J. Pitasi and Joan Pitasi v. The Stratton Corp.
  968 F.2d 1558· 2d Cir.· 1992-07-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred by excluding evidence of subsequent remedial measures and by failing to provide jury instructions regarding the season pass, requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Washington
  969 F.2d 1073· D.C. Cir.· 1992-06-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting a guilty plea solely because the defendant refused to incriminate a co-defendant, but found the error to be harmless as the defendant was ultimately convicted of the same offense.
• United States v. Gad Gilan
  967 F.2d 776· 2d Cir.· 1992-06-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that evidence of an uncharged theft was improperly admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) because there was insufficient evidence linking the defendant to that prior act.
• Gehl v. The SOO Line R.R. Co.
  967 F.2d 1204· 8th Cir.· 1992-06-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in excluding evidence of a local speed ordinance and a safety assessment, nor in refusing to submit a failure-to-warn theory to the jury.
• United States v. Charles V. Ushery (91-5716) & Benjamin R. Burton (91-5715)
  968 F.2d 575· 6th Cir.· 1992-06-18 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the denial of the motions to suppress, the convictions, and the sentence, finding that the encounters were consensual or supported by reasonable suspicion/probable cause, and that the evidence and sentencing were proper.
• United States v. Blyden
  964 F.2d 1375· 3d Cir.· 1992-06-01 ·cited 2×
  Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b) do not bar the admission of evidence of criminal conduct for which a defendant was previously acquitted if that evidence is essential to proving an element of a pending charge.
• United States v. Syed Shaft Imran
  964 F.2d 1313· 2d Cir.· 1992-05-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not commit reversible error in excluding expert testimony, in its jury charge regarding the defendant's right not to testify, or in denying the motion for a new trial.
• United States v. Peden
  961 F.2d 517· 5th Cir.· 1992-05-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of a prior conviction, refusing to admit the victim's welfare records, refusing to quash the kidnapping count, or denying motions for acquittal.
• United States v. Yahweh
  792 F. Supp. 104· S.D. Fla.· 1992-05-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that enlarged autopsy photographs of murder victims were admissible because their probative value, in corroborating witness testimony and illustrating the nature of the crimes, substantially outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice.
• United States v. Mareno M. Waloke
  962 F.2d 824· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-27 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the assault convictions and sentence, finding sufficient evidence, proper evidentiary rulings, adequate jury instructions, and correct application of the Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. Robinson-Munoz
  961 F.2d 300· 1st Cir.· 1992-04-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting a co-defendant's statement, that sufficient evidence proved appellants' knowledge of the marijuana, and that jurisdiction was properly established.
• United States v. Maxwell Allen
  960 F.2d 1055· D.C. Cir.· 1992-04-07 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the search warrant was valid, the evidence was sufficient, and the prosecutor's arguments and evidentiary rulings were not grounds for reversal.
• Hancock v. Dodson
  958 F.2d 1367· 6th Cir.· 1992-03-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that admitting a guilty plea to a misdemeanor and allowing questioning about a prior insurance claim constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Cornel T. Montague
  958 F.2d 1094· D.C. Cir.· 1992-03-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a prior consistent statement made after arrest but before leniency negotiations can be admissible to rebut charges of fabrication.
• Dillinger v. Caterpillar, Inc.
  959 F.2d 430· 3d Cir.· 1992-02-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of seat belt non-use was harmless error, and the admission of evidence regarding the plaintiff's failure to use an alternative braking system was not grounds for reversal.
• United States v. Dockery
  955 F.2d 50· D.C. Cir.· 1992-01-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to sever the ex-felon count, and by allowing the government to use the prior conviction in cross-examining a defense witness, leading to undue prejudice against the defendant.
• United States v. Gregory Wrice (90-5703) & Tommy Goods (90-5479)
  954 F.2d 406· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a document filed with the district court within forty days of judgment, even if not a formal notice of appeal, can confer jurisdiction if later validated by a motion to extend time.
• Ervan Purnell v. Lord
  952 F.2d 679· 2d Cir.· 1992-01-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the revocation of an inmate's correspondence privilege was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests and that no clearly established liberty interest existed for due process claims, thus affirming the lower court's decision.
• United States v. Rodriguez-Alvarado
  952 F.2d 586· 1st Cir.· 1991-12-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of guilt for bank fraud and aiding and abetting the misappropriation of bank funds, and that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in its rulings or jury instructions.
• Abbott Labs. v. Brennan
  952 F.2d 1346· Fed. Cir.· 1991-12-27 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the denial of Rule 11 sanctions, the exclusion of certain evidence and expert testimony, and the dismissal of the antitrust counterclaim. It also affirmed the jury's verdict on tortious interference and abuse of process, subject to further review of specific da
• United States v. A & S Council OIL Co.
  947 F.2d 1128· 4th Cir.· 1991-10-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while polygraph results are generally inadmissible to prove the truth of their results, a defendant should be allowed to cross-examine an expert witness about polygraph results the expert considered in forming an opinion about a key government witness's credib
• United States v. Barnett
  945 F.2d 1296· 5th Cir.· 1991-09-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury instructions adequately conveyed the subjective standard for a good faith mistaken belief defense and that the exclusion of certain documentary evidence was either proper or harmless error.
• United States v. Alphonso Wright
  943 F.2d 748· 7th Cir.· 1991-09-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of a prior narcotics arrest under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and in admitting a tape-recorded conversation, as both were relevant and properly handled with limiting instructions.
• Osie Cook, Jr. v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp.
  940 F.2d 207· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's evidentiary rulings, while potentially erroneous in some instances, did not constitute reversible error and that the defective notice of appeal did not deprive the court of jurisdiction.
• United States v. Citro
  938 F.2d 1431· 1st Cir.· 1991-07-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support Lodato's convictions, the 'oral intercept' was properly authorized, the exclusion of the answering machine tape was within the court's discretion, and drug dependency is not a basis for downward departure under the guidel
• United States v. McNATT
  931 F.2d 251· 4th Cir.· 1991-04-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, the motion to dismiss for ineffective assistance of counsel, in restricting testimony, in refusing to admit evidence, in denying the motion in limine, or in calculating the sentence.
• Selena H. Threadgill v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc.
  928 F.2d 1366· 3d Cir.· 1991-03-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred by refusing to independently examine the authenticity of the Sumner Simpson documents and by adopting a prior ruling without proper analysis, requiring reversal.
• United States v. Bartley Walsh
  928 F.2d 7· 1st Cir.· 1991-03-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that evidence of other alleged bad acts was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to rebut the defendant's claims of proper conduct and that the statute of limitations did not bar the embezzlement conviction as the jury could find the crime was completed
• United States v. Rodriguez
  926 F.2d 418· 5th Cir.· 1991-03-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in allowing the display of marijuana evidence, admitting evidence of a co-defendant's actions, or in its sufficiency of evidence determination.
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Duberry
  923 F.2d 317· 3d Cir.· 1991-01-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial commenced within the 70-day period required by the Speedy Trial Act when voir dire began, and that delays caused by pretrial motions for release and detention were excludable, thus affirming the conviction.
• Hester M. Rogers v. Raymark Indus., Inc.
  922 F.2d 1426· 9th Cir.· 1991-01-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert and percipient witness testimony under Fed.R.Evid. 403, and any error in allowing demonstrative evidence not listed in the pre-trial order was harmless.
• United States v. Weeks
  919 F.2d 248· 5th Cir.· 1990-11-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in requiring the defendant to be shackled, admitting testimony about his nickname, questioning a witness about identification, admitting a photograph, displaying a firearm, or in its handling of alleged government m
• Swajian v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  916 F.2d 31· 1st Cir.· 1990-10-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the decedent's intoxication under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, and that a lay witness's opinion testimony on the ultimate issue of whether the wheel separated before or after the rollover was inadmissible.
• Dugan v. EMS Helicopters, Inc.
  915 F.2d 1428· 10th Cir.· 1990-10-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding a prior ancillary complaint as inadmissible, finding it constituted an admission against interest and impeachment evidence, and that its exclusion was harmful error requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Dweck
  913 F.2d 365· 7th Cir.· 1990-09-10 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, finding sufficient evidence, no plain error regarding a witness's mention of prior imprisonment, and no Brady violation.
• United States v. Lopez-Lima
  738 F. Supp. 1404· S.D. Fla.· 1990-06-07 ·cited 2×
  Classified information is relevant to a defendant's affirmative defense of public authority and to negating the requisite wrongful intent for aircraft piracy, provided the defendant reasonably relied on actual government authority.
• Turner v. Allstate Ins. Co.
  902 F.2d 1208· 6th Cir.· 1990-05-09 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in shifting the burden of proof to the defendant and in excluding relevant statistical evidence, warranting reversal and remand.