Federal Rule Of Evidence 403

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

• Desmond D. Sanders v. State
  254 So. 3d 1038· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-09-20 ·cited 1×
  Desmond Sanders appeals his first-degree murder conviction for the shooting death of Carlos Bradwell at the House of Meat in Fort Pierce. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, addressing Sanders' challenge to the trial court's admission of evidence regarding a shooting at
• Taylor v. Seketa Culver
  178 So. 3d 550· Fla. 1st DCA· 2015-12-01 ·cited 1×
  In a personal injury case arising from a low-impact automobile collision, the First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of appellant's biomedical engineering expert that was re
• Coddington v. Nunez
  151 So. 3d 445· Fla. 2d DCA· 2013-09-04 ·cited 1×
  The Coddingtons appealed a judgment entered against them in a negligence action arising from an automobile accident. The trial court excluded expert testimony regarding vehicle speed and the direction of the driver's body movement based on computer simulation analysis. The appell
• In re Seroquel Prods. Liab. Litig.
  601 F. Supp. 2d 1313· M.D. Fla.· 2009-03-11 ·cited 1×
  The court affirmed the magistrate judge's order excluding evidence and argument about foreign Seroquel labels and regulatory actions, finding its probative value substantially outweighed by the risk of jury confusion and prejudice.
• Frizzle v. State
  982 So. 2d 1292· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-06-11 ·cited 1×
  Richard Frizzle was convicted of manslaughter in the death of his disabled wife after the trial court reduced a felony murder charge. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court erroneously admitted irrelevant and prejudicial testimony about
• Mercado v. City of Orlando
  323 F. Supp. 2d 1266· M.D. Fla.· 2004-06-24 ·cited 1×
  The court held that officers are entitled to qualified immunity for using force to prevent a suicide attempt, as the law was not clearly established, and that the city is not liable for negligent training due to sovereign immunity.
• United States v. Aisenberg
  120 F. Supp. 2d 1345· M.D. Fla.· 2000-11-09 ·cited 1×
  A recording is legally audible and admissible if it is sufficiently reliable and trustworthy for its intended evidentiary purpose, even if partially inaudible. The trial judge has discretion to determine audibility based on specific facts and circumstances.
• United States v. Cardoen
  898 F. Supp. 1563· S.D. Fla.· 1995-08-29 ·cited 1×
  The court held that defendants Johnson and Griffin failed to establish a predicate for introducing classified information to support their defenses of lack of specific intent and entrapment.
• JOY v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.
  999 F.2d 549· D.C. Cir.· 1993-07-27 ·cited 1×
  The court held that evidence of other SAG failures was admissible and jury instructions on product liability were proper, but reversed a damages award for loss of consortium and certified a question regarding the District of Columbia's liability for the rescue effort.
• United States v. Anthony Medina (91-1852)
  992 F.2d 573· 6th Cir.· 1993-04-12 ·cited 1×
  The dissenting judge believes the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for using a telephone to facilitate a drug transaction when the defendant was already prosecuted for the underlying drug possession.
• United States v. Wynn
  987 F.2d 354· 6th Cir.· 1993-02-26 ·cited 1×
  The court held that evidence of prior bad acts is admissible to show intent under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) if its probative value outweighs prejudice under Fed.R.Evid. 403, and that the prosecution need not prove state law, only facts.
• Rainey v. Conerly
  973 F.2d 321· 4th Cir.· 1992-08-19 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the district court properly denied the defendant's motions for qualified immunity, but erred in excluding a key piece of evidence and in failing to question the jury panel on potential bias, entitling the plaintiff to a new trial.
• Larez v. City OF LOS Angeles
  946 F.2d 630· 9th Cir.· 1991-09-27 ·cited 1×
  The court affirmed the denial of a new trial for the six officers but reversed and remanded for a new trial against Chief Gates and the City due to the erroneous admission of hearsay evidence.
• Jacobs v. Pickands Mather & Co.
  933 F.2d 652· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-16 ·cited 1×
  The court held that severance pay should include years of service with a former employer, Reserve Mining Company, and that the Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch standard applies retroactively. The court also affirmed the district court's finding that two individuals were emplo
• Brown v. State
  532 So. 2d 1326· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-11-01 ·cited 1×
  Florida appellate court affirmed a second-degree murder conviction, holding that admission of a gruesome color photograph of the deceased was not an abuse of discretion under the balancing test of Florida Statute § 90.403 because its probative value in corroborating eyewitness te
• Bauer v. State
  528 So. 2d 6· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-05-18 ·cited 1×
  Kenneth Bauer appeals his conviction for dealing in stolen property, challenging the trial court's admission of hearsay testimony from an undercover agent regarding information supplied by a confidential informant. The court reverses, holding that such hearsay is inadmissible to
• United States v. Williams
  822 F.2d 512· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-14 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges was not discriminatory, the admission of reputation testimony was not plain error, cross-examination restrictions were not an abuse of discretion, bail denial was moot, and closing arguments were not substantially
• United States v. MC Lean-Davis
  785 F.2d 1534· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-08 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting a hearsay message, excluding evidence under Rule 403, controlling the order of testimony, proving venue, or denying a Speedy Trial Act claim.
• United States v. Holley
  11th Cir.· 2026-02-03
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting body-worn camera footage and a 911 call recording, and that the sentence imposed was appropriate.
• United States v. Sefan Eberhard Zappey
  11th Cir.· 2026-01-21
  Stefan Eberhard Zappey, a former DOD elementary school teacher, was convicted of sexually abusing four students at Patch Elementary School in Germany between 2006-2010. On appeal, Zappey challenged the trial court's exclusion of expert testimony on memory reliability, arguing it
• United States v. Keegan
  11th Cir.· 2025-12-17
  Statements made to a medical expert for the purpose of preparing the expert to testify at trial, rather than for medical diagnosis or treatment, do not fall under the hearsay exception of Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4).
• United States v. Starr
  11th Cir.· 2025-11-19
  The court held that the district court did not err in excluding evidence of an alternate perpetrator, admitting Sara's statement as an excited utterance, admitting agent testimony for its effect on the investigation, or in finding sufficient evidence to convict the Starrs of murd
• M.B. v. Wendy's Int'l, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-17
  The court held that a defense expert's testimony was admissible, and that evidence of the plaintiff's past sexual behavior and settlement with a co-defendant was admissible under specific rules and exceptions, while other evidence was excluded.
• Thelen v. Somatics, LLC
  11th Cir.· 2025-09-29
  Jeffrey Thelen sued Somatics, manufacturer of an electroconvulsive therapy device, alleging the company failed to adequately warn him of the risk of permanent memory loss and brain damage from 95 ECT treatments he received between 2014 and 2016. The jury found that Somatics provi
• Young v. Panera, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-20
  Two motorists sought damages from Panera after being injured in a 2019 automobile accident caused by a Panera employee driving a company vehicle, claiming negligence and relying on a theory of respondeat superior. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding $
• Buress v. City of Miami
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-07-10
  The court held that the defendant failed to meet his burden to exclude the plaintiff's expert testimony under Daubert and Rule 403.
• Benavides v. Tesla, Inc
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-06-30
  Plaintiffs sued Tesla over a 2019 collision in which a Tesla Model S using Autopilot struck a parked vehicle, killing one plaintiff and injuring another; the case proceeded to trial on defective design and failure-to-warn claims after the court granted summary judgment on two oth
• Herezi v. 31-W Insulation Co., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-16
  The court denied the motion to strike expert Robert Ketchum as harmlessly untimely disclosed and deferred ruling on his cumulative testimony, while granting in part the motion to compel expert depositions by ordering amended scheduling.
• Atoya Holmes v. State
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2025-06-11
  The trial court abused its discretion by permitting the State to conduct extensive cross-examination regarding a prior 2017 shooting incident that went far beyond what was necessary to correct Holmes' allegedly misleading testimony, and this error was presumptively harmful and no
• Sihler v. Global e-Trading, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-05
  The court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion in limine, and denied Plaintiffs' motion in limine, allowing certain evidence to be presented at trial.
• Sihler v. Global e-Trading, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-16
  The court granted in part and denied in part the motions to exclude expert testimony, allowing most testimony but prohibiting the use of the terms 'fraud' and 'fraudulent' by one expert.
• Parker v. U.S. Attorney General
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-05-06
  The court granted the respondent's motion to draw adverse inferences against the petitioner due to his extensive stonewalling of discovery, including unjustified Fifth Amendment assertions.
• United States v. Booker
  11th Cir.· 2025-04-30
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the defendant's prior state drug convictions, even though they were Alford pleas, because they were relevant to intent and not substantially outweighed by prejudice.
• U.S. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. The Princess Martha, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-14
  The court granted in part and denied in part cross-motions in limine, ruling on the admissibility of various pieces of evidence and arguments before trial.
• Jolibois v. Pub. Health Tr. of Miami-Dade Cnty. Fla.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-04-14
  The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' motions in limine, ruling on the admissibility of evidence for an upcoming trial.
• Cooper v. Milliman, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-07
  The court held that an expert witness may testify regarding industry practices and standards under the FCRA, but may not offer opinions on whether a party's procedures were ultimately reasonable or unreasonable, as those are legal conclusions for the court.
• Parker v. U.S. Attorney General
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-03-11
  The court held that a declaration containing hearsay within hearsay, specifically a statement from an immigration officer relayed by the declarant, is inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 803(19) and 804(b)(4) because it does not qualify as family history reputation or a
• J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc. v. Troyz Towing & Storage, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-24
  The court granted in part Plaintiff's motion for judicial notice of a statute and denied Plaintiff's motions in limine to exclude non-expert testimony, evidence of financial status, and evidence of a corporate representative's cancer treatment.
• Doe v. Miami Gardens Square One, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-01-20
  The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' motions in limine, ruling on the admissibility of various categories of evidence and arguments for an upcoming trial.
• Cserni v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-06
  The court held that Google Maps images, offered to prove the condition of a cart corral at a specific past date, are not subject to judicial notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b) and require proper authentication under Federal Rule of Evidence 901 to be considered for summ
• Ward v. M/Y Utopia IV
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-10-03
  The court ruled on various motions in limine and other requests, granting some, denying others, and deferring rulings on certain issues.
• Las Brisas v. Empire Indem. Ins.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-01
  The court granted in part and denied in part Empire's motion in limine, allowing Las Brisas to pursue claims for delay damages, appraisal costs, prejudgment interest, and attorney's fees, but limiting the calculation of delay damages.
• Murphy v. Airway Air Charter, Inc
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-09-30
  The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' motions in limine, ruling on the admissibility of various categories of evidence and testimony for the upcoming trial.
• Orbsat Corp. v. Seifert
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-09-19
  The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion in limine, ruling on the admissibility of various categories of evidence related to dismissed claims, affirmative defenses, and expert testimony.
• Rodriguez v. Clear Blue Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-19
  A letter sent during pre-suit dispute resolution negotiations is inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 408, and a supplemental expert affidavit regarding property valuation is irrelevant to the remaining claims.
• Jarvis v. City of Daytona Beach
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-08
  The court held that some expert opinions were inadmissible legal conclusions or unhelpful to the jury, while others were admissible based on the expert's qualifications and the helpfulness of the testimony.
• Young v. Panera, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-01
  The court granted the motion to exclude the defendant's medical billing expert's testimony.
• Corbin v. Prummell, Jr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-25
  The court held that the expert's testimony regarding the plaintiff's blood alcohol content and its expected effects is admissible because the expert is qualified, the methodology is reliable, and the testimony will assist the trier of fact in determining probable cause for arrest
• Johnson Bros. Corp. v. WSP USA, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-10
  The court granted in part and denied in part Defendant CDM Smith, Inc.'s motion in limine, reserving ruling on certain issues, based on the application of Federal Rule of Evidence 403 and contractual interpretations.
• Galati v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-07-09
  The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' joint motions in limine, ruling on the admissibility of various categories of evidence and testimony.