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. Salamone
  902 F.2d 237· 3d Cir.· 1990-05-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that following the Supreme Court's decision in Dowling v. United States, its prior ruling reversing convictions based on collateral estoppel was incorrect, and the convictions should be affirmed.
• Laney v. Celotex Corp.
  901 F.2d 1319· 6th Cir.· 1990-04-25 ·cited 2×
• United States v. Harvey
  900 F.2d 1253· 8th Cir.· 1990-04-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred by dismissing the government's Notice of Intent to Proceed Under the Dangerous Special Offender Statute without an evidentiary hearing, but found no reversible error in the conviction phase of the trial.
• United States v. Thomlinson
  897 F.2d 971· 8th Cir.· 1990-03-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the warrantless inspection of the tavern was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that evidence of motorcycle club membership was admissible.
• United States v. Martinez
  890 F.2d 1088· 10th Cir.· 1989-11-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the offense of failure to appear under 18 U.S.C. § 3146 is a continuing offense, and evidence of prior convictions and indictments was properly admitted for motive.
• United States v. Mutulu Shakur
  888 F.2d 234· 2d Cir.· 1989-10-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendants' claims of jury taint, improper cross-examination, and erroneous evidentiary rulings did not warrant reversal of their convictions.
• Herrington v. Durrell Hiller, M.D.
  883 F.2d 411· 5th Cir.· 1989-09-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the hospital's subsequent decision to provide twenty-four-hour anesthesia services, as it was relevant to the standard of care and not unduly prejudicial.
• United States v. Eleuterio Cortijo-Diaz
  875 F.2d 13· 1st Cir.· 1989-05-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that admitting a defendant's prior conviction for attempted robbery to prove propensity for violence in a prosecution for assaulting a flight attendant was error under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
• United States v. Dillon
  870 F.2d 1125· 6th Cir.· 1989-03-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the defendant's flight and in refusing to strike a juror whose husband drove her to court daily, as the juror credibly denied discussing the case.
• Pierce Assocs., Inc. v. The Nemours Found.
  865 F.2d 530· 3d Cir.· 1988-12-29 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the owner could be a third-party beneficiary of the subcontract and that the exclusion of expert testimony was an abuse of discretion.
• Carlissa Churchill v. The F/V Fjord
  857 F.2d 571· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the F/V Fjord is not liable in rem because the operator of its skiff was not in lawful possession, and that a state statute imposing unlimited liability is preempted by federal maritime law. The court also affirmed the finding that the lack of lights was not a
• Crowell v. State
  528 So. 2d 535· Fla. 5th DCA· 1988-07-21 ·cited 2×
  Mark Crowell was convicted of two counts of aggravated battery after a spring-gun trap discharged and injured two teenage boys on property owned by his mother. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction, finding the circumstantial evidence insufficient and that
• Brown v. W.B. Flury
  848 F.2d 158· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that any error in allowing the impeachment of inmate witnesses with prior convictions was harmless because the jury was already aware of their criminal history.
• United States v. Jackson
  845 F.2d 880· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that submitting forms to fraudulently reduce liability to the government constitutes a "claim" under 18 U.S.C. § 287, and prior false claims are admissible to prove intent.
• Coleman v. Parkline Corp.
  844 F.2d 863· D.C. Cir.· 1988-04-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in admitting the safety engineer's expert testimony and did not err in refusing to give a jury instruction on contributory negligence.
• United States v. Thompson
  837 F.2d 673· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a federal agent's examination of keys found among a lawfully arrested person's inventoried property, which were previously viewed by police, did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
• Maynard v. Sayles
  817 F.2d 50· 8th Cir.· 1987-04-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the exclusion of testimony regarding a police "code of silence" under Federal Rule of Evidence 406 was reversible error, but the admission of certain statements in a jail medical record was inadmissible hearsay.
• McQuaig v. McCOY
  806 F.2d 1298· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in limiting the admissibility of the Internal Affairs report, denying a mistrial, or in its evidentiary rulings, and that the improper 'missing witness' argument did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Scott
  795 F.2d 1245· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendants' convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that their procedural and evidentiary challenges lacked merit.
• Rodriguez v. Schweiger
  796 F.2d 930· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-17 ·cited 2×
  A plaintiff's guilty plea in state court collaterally estops them from relitigating facts underlying the plea in a subsequent federal civil rights action, absent special circumstances like fraud or newly discovered evidence.
• Mello v. K-Mart Corp.
  792 F.2d 1228· 1st Cir.· 1986-06-04 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the judgments, holding that any errors in directing a verdict for one defendant or in evidentiary rulings were harmless given the jury's finding that the product was not defective.
• United States v. Nichols
  781 F.2d 483· 5th Cir.· 1986-01-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of prior conspiracy convictions into evidence to prove intent and identity in a trial for substantive crimes was an abuse of discretion under Fed.R.Evid. 403.
• United States v. McCALLUM
  788 F.2d 1042· 5th Cir.· 1985-12-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or jury charge, affirming the defendant's conviction.
• Sherwin W. Fish and Leona B. Fish v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.
  779 F.2d 836· 2d Cir.· 1985-12-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that admitting evidence of a subsequent remedial warning was an error under FRE 407 and FRE 403, and that other evidentiary and instructional errors also prejudiced the defense, requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Pinalto
  771 F.2d 457· 10th Cir.· 1985-08-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the tapes were admissible as statements of a party-opponent under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A), and the district court erred in excluding them based on a misapplication of the rule and by invading the province of the jury.
• United States v. Jonnet
  762 F.2d 16· 3d Cir.· 1985-05-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the inadvertent submission of the entire deposition transcripts, including a significant transcription error, to the jury room constituted reversible error because it could have substantially swayed the judgment.
• United States v. Perry
  740 F.2d 854· 11th Cir.· 1984-08-29 ·cited 2×
• Tony Guiffre Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.
  740 F.2d 295· 4th Cir.· 1984-08-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that unpaid rent was inadmissible to prove damages in an inverse condemnation claim due to a non-arm's length lease, prejudgment interest was not awarded as it was not timely requested, and attorney's fees were not recoverable under the lease's indemnity clause.
• The AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Hirschell L. Guynes and Mable Ann Guynes
  713 F.2d 1187· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that misrepresentations made by the insureds during the investigation of a fire loss do not void the policy unless they are fraudulent, material to the insurer's liability, and mislead the insurer into losing a valid defense.
• Wolk v. Churchill
  696 F.2d 621· 8th Cir.· 1982-12-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury instruction on the fraud counterclaim contained an erroneous standard of intent for promises of future action, potentially affecting damages.
• Fulton v. ST. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
  675 F.2d 1130· 10th Cir.· 1982-04-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the railroad's failure to comply with industry loading rules and its duty to inspect were relevant to negligence, and that the injured employee's negligence was attributable to the railroad under FELA. However, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial o
• United States v. Penello
  668 F.2d 789· 4th Cir.· 1982-01-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 because its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.
• LEE v. MacOn Cnty. Bd. OF Educ.
  650 F.2d 608· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the school board's decision to promote a white candidate over a black candidate for principal was not racially discriminatory, and the exclusion of certain testimony was not reversible error.
• U.S.A. Petroleum Corp. v. The Anaconda Co.
  653 F.2d 502· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1981-06-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in instructing the jury that they could not consider price regulations when determining damages, and that a contract provision designed to circumvent price regulations was illegal.
• United States v. DuBOIS
  645 F.2d 642· 8th Cir.· 1981-04-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government failed to prove by competent evidence that the defendant was intoxicated while driving, an essential element of involuntary manslaughter.
• White v. Cohen
  635 F.2d 761· 9th Cir.· 1981-01-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of a tape recording containing prejudicial statements, even if partially admissible for impeachment, constituted reversible error because the prejudicial content could not be effectively cured by the trial court's instructions.
• Smith v. Louie L. Wainwright
  568 F.2d 362· 5th Cir.· 1978-02-21 ·cited 2×
  A subsequent acquittal of an 'other crime' does not retroactively render inadmissible evidence of that crime previously admitted at a trial for a different offense.
• Pine Crest Preparatory Sch., Inc. v. Phelan
  557 F.2d 407· 4th Cir.· 1977-06-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting into evidence a contract paragraph stating the purchaser would pay the broker's commission, as it was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial.
• United States v. Mendell
  538 F.2d 1238· 6th Cir.· 1976-07-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government did not commit reversible error by calling a witness who claimed memory loss, as her testimony was impeached by an FBI agent's statement, and the jury was properly instructed.
• Keriekan Palmer v. City of Daytona Beach
  570 F. Supp. 3d 1131· M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-04 ·cited 1×
  The Court held that the Plaintiff's Motion in Limine was deficient and stricken with leave to refile.
• Polypack, Inc. v. Nestle USA, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-18 ·cited 1×
  The court granted in part and denied in part Nestlé's Omnibus Motion in Limine, excluding certain evidence related to service agreement invoices and employee performance reviews while allowing evidence of set-off and limiting broad characterizations of employee conduct.
• United States v. O'Steen
  133 F.4th 1200· 11th Cir.· 2025-04-04 ·cited 1×
  Criminal defense attorney Marion Michael O'Steen was convicted of Hobbs Act extortion and failing to file a currency report after an FBI sting operation involving a $60,000 cash payment from an informant in a gambling prosecution case. The Eleventh Circuit reversed both convictio
• Jackson v. State
  384 So. 3d 811· Fla. 5th DCA· 2024-04-05 ·cited 1×
  Michael Jackson appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and sexual battery, challenging the trial court's admission of evidence regarding a 1986 sexual battery he committed. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence was admiss
• Blow v. State
  48 Fla. L. Weekly D665· Fla. 5th DCA· 2023-09-29 ·cited 1×
  The trial court erred in excluding Appellant's testimony about two alleged prior consensual sexual encounters with the victim, as such testimony concerned activity between the victim and the defendant—not with a third party—and thus fell outside the rape shield statute. However,
• State v. Trinidad
  351 So. 3d 109· Fla. 5th DCA· 2022-10-28 ·cited 1×
  The trial court abused its discretion in suppressing the audio recording under section 90.403 because the recording contains relevant evidence from which guilt may be inferred, and the trial court improperly concluded that confusion and prejudice would outweigh probative value wi
• Herrera v. Jarden Corp.
  334 So. 3d 637· Fla. 4th DCA· 2022-02-23 ·cited 1×
  The appellate court affirmed a final judgment for the defendant after a jury trial. The court held that the trial court correctly dismissed the plaintiff's whistleblower claim as time-barred and properly precluded the plaintiff's counsel from questioning the defendant's in-house
• Murphy v. State
  317 So. 3d 1255· Fla. 3d DCA· 2021-05-05 ·cited 1×
  Evidence of a sexual assault victim's prior false or fabricated sexual assault allegation may be excluded without violating the Confrontation Clause where the prior incident lacks logical connection to the charged offense, involves different perpetrators and circumstances, and th
• Newman v. State
  300 So. 3d 360· Fla. 1st DCA· 2020-07-13 ·cited 1×
  Michael Paul Newman was convicted of lewd or lascivious molestation of his eight-year-old adopted daughter. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's admission of similar fact evidence involving molestation of his other adopted daughter. The appellate court affirmed, finding the
• Jose Baez - Ortiz v. State
  311 So. 3d 151· Fla. 2d DCA· 2020-07-08 ·cited 1×
  The appellate court reversed a conviction for lewd or lascivious conduct, finding that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of prior warnings and reprimands for dissimilar conduct. This evidence was deemed unfairly prejudicial and not relevant to the charged offense.
• Williams v. State
  272 So. 3d 482· Fla. 3d DCA· 2019-04-03 ·cited 1×
  Trial courts have broad discretion in determining the relevance and admissibility of evidence, and such determinations will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.