Federal Rule Of Evidence 406 (Habit; Routine Practice)

10 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Reyes v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co.
  589 F.2d 791· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-14 ·cited 44×
  The court held that prior misdemeanor convictions for public intoxication were inadmissible character evidence under Rule 404(a) and not admissible habit evidence under Rule 406.
• Loughan v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
  749 F.2d 1519· 11th Cir.· 1985-01-10 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of the plaintiff's drinking habit, granting a directed verdict on the duty to warn, denying a motion to amend the complaint, or in its assessment of costs.
• Perrin v. Donnie Anderson and Roland Von Schriltz
  784 F.2d 1040· 10th Cir.· 1986-02-27 ·cited 20×
  The court held that evidence of prior violent encounters was admissible as habit evidence, and a report by the Shooting Review Board was admissible under the public records exception to the hearsay rule. Remarks about personal liability were permissible due to the claim for punit
• Keltner v. Ford Motor Co.
  748 F.2d 1265· 8th Cir.· 1984-11-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the jury instructions on comparative negligence were proper, and the admission of evidence regarding the plaintiff's drinking habits was not an abuse of discretion.
• Simplex, Inc. v. Diversified Energy Sys., Inc.
  847 F.2d 1290· 7th Cir.· 1988-06-06 ·cited 15×
  The court affirmed the jury verdict and the district court's rulings, holding that the exclusion of undisclosed expert testimony and evidence of other contracts was proper, and the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence.
• United States v. Driggs
  823 F.2d 52· 3d Cir.· 1987-07-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that excluding evidence of a comprehensive scheme under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 was an abuse of discretion when it was relevant to proving essential elements of a Hobbs Act violation.
• Meyer v. United States
  638 F.2d 155· 10th Cir.· 1980-06-26 ·cited 8×
  Evidence of a person's habit or an organization's routine practice is relevant to prove conduct on a particular occasion conformed to that habit or practice, and its weight is determined by the circumstances, not automatically disregarded when contradicted by direct testimony.
• United States v. Newman
  982 F.2d 665· 1st Cir.· 1992-12-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding habit evidence, handling juror inattentiveness allegations, finding serious bodily injury, or applying sentencing guidelines that resulted in 'double counting'.
• 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.
• United States v. Rangel-Arreola
  991 F.2d 1519· 10th Cir.· 1993-05-05
  The court held that while the district court erred in failing to ensure the defendant had an opportunity to review and discuss the presentence report, remand for resentencing was not required because the defendant suffered no prejudice from the violation.