Federal Rule Of Evidence 501

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

• In re Grand Jury Proceedings. United States v. Knox Jones
  517 F.2d 666· 5th Cir.· 1975-07-30 ·cited 121×
  The attorney-client privilege can extend to a client's identity, fee, and bonding arrangements when disclosure would reveal confidential communications or link the client to criminal activity.
• United States v. Lustig
  555 F.2d 737· 9th Cir.· 1977-06-15 ·cited 111×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying continuances, dismissing a juror, limiting cross-examination, admitting testimony, or in its jury instructions, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Hodge AND Zweig
  548 F.2d 1347· 9th Cir.· 1977-02-16 ·cited 105×
  The court held that an IRS summons seeking attorney fee information is enforceable when issued in good faith for a legitimate tax investigation, even if it might incidentally aid a separate criminal investigation, and that the attorney-client privilege does not protect informatio
• In re Int'l Horizons, Inc. v. The Comm. OF Unsecured Creditors
  689 F.2d 996· 11th Cir.· 1982-10-21 ·cited 60×
  A federal bankruptcy court is not required to recognize a state's accountant-client privilege, nor does a federal common law accountant-client privilege exist, and comity does not compel recognition of such a state privilege in federal bankruptcy proceedings.
• Johnson v. William C. Ellis & Sons Iron Works, Inc.
  609 F.2d 820· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-11 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to admit statements from safety publications under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(18), as there was a reasonable likelihood that this exclusion affected a substantial right of the plaintiff.
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings
  563 F.2d 577· 3d Cir.· 1977-09-07 ·cited 55×
  The court affirmed the lower court's orders, finding appellate jurisdiction and rejecting the speech and debate clause protection against criminal prosecution for state legislators.
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings Involving Berkley & Co., Inc.
  629 F.2d 548· 8th Cir.· 1980-08-27 ·cited 51×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the district court's order compelling disclosure of documents claimed to be privileged, and affirmed the order subject to qualifications.
• In re Grand Jury Impaneled January 21 v. Cortese
  541 F.2d 373· 3d Cir.· 1976-08-10 ·cited 51×
  Retainer agreements filed under a local court rule, even if deemed privileged by state law, are not privileged against a federal grand jury subpoena under federal common law when balancing state interests against the need for evidence in federal investigations.
• United States v. Cuthbertson
  630 F.2d 139· 3d Cir.· 1980-07-23 ·cited 42×
  The court held that a qualified First Amendment privilege protects journalists' unpublished materials, and while in camera review is permissible to balance this privilege against a defendant's needs, the privilege should not be compelled for materials not obtainable from non-jour
• Mem'l Hosp. FOR McHENRY Cnty. v. The Honorable Milton I. Shadur
  664 F.2d 1058· 7th Cir.· 1981-11-16 ·cited 40×
  Federal courts are not required to apply state-created privileges when state law does not supply the rule of decision for the claim, and the public interest in enforcing federal antitrust law outweighs the state's interest in confidentiality of hospital peer review proceedings in
• Murray W. (Dusty) Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc.
  621 F.2d 721· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-15 ·cited 39×
  A reporter's First Amendment privilege to protect a confidential informant's identity must yield in a libel case when the plaintiff is a public figure and the informant's identity is crucial to proving malice, especially when alternative means of discovery have been exhausted.
• United States v. Ismail
  756 F.2d 1253· 6th Cir.· 1985-03-18 ·cited 38×
  The court held that an emancipated adult son must testify against his parent, prior bad acts evidence was admissible, and the government's failure to produce a second address book did not warrant a new trial.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Univ. OF Notre Dame DU LAC
  715 F.2d 331· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-17 ·cited 35×
  The court held that a qualified academic freedom privilege protects the identities of peer reviewers in tenure decisions, allowing for redaction of identifying information before disclosure to the EEOC.
• Riley v. City OF Chester & Joseph F. Battle
  612 F.2d 708· 3d Cir.· 1979-12-14 ·cited 35×
  A qualified federal common law privilege protects journalists from being compelled to disclose their sources, and this privilege can only be overcome by a strong showing of necessity and unavailability of the information from other sources.
• United States v. Simmons
  964 F.2d 763· 8th Cir.· 1992-05-15 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the convictions but remanded for resentencing for one defendant, finding that while the exclusion of a probation report was an error, it was harmless, and that the Sentencing Guidelines' crack penalty ratio was constitutional.
• Tornay v. United States
  840 F.2d 1424· 9th Cir.· 1988-02-22 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the attorney-client privilege does not protect fee information sought by the IRS, and that enforcing the summons does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel or the Fifth Amendment right to due process because the right to counsel had not yet attached
• In re September 1975 Grand Jury Term. Harvey W. Thompson v. United States
  532 F.2d 734· 10th Cir.· 1976-03-22 ·cited 34×
  A witness in contempt for refusing to produce corporate documents for a grand jury investigation cannot claim personal privilege, and the court did not err in conducting an ex parte hearing to determine a prima facie need for the documents.
• Liew v. Breen
  640 F.2d 1046· 9th Cir.· 1981-03-20 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the identities of Breen's clients were discoverable and not protected by attorney-client privilege, but remanded the case to recalculate attorney's fees to exclude costs incurred before Breen's failure to obey the discovery order.
• United States v. Craig
  528 F.2d 773· 7th Cir.· 1976-01-05 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the speech or debate clause of the Illinois Constitution is inapplicable in a federal criminal proceeding, and the federal common law of evidence does not include a speech or debate privilege for state legislators.
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings
  727 F.2d 1352· 4th Cir.· 1984-02-24 ·cited 32×
  The attorney-client privilege does not protect communications intended to be disclosed to third parties, even if that disclosure never occurred.
• United States v. Penn
  647 F.2d 876· 9th Cir.· 1980-05-15 ·cited 32×
• Brink's Inc. v. The City OF NEW York
  717 F.2d 700· 2d Cir.· 1983-09-06 ·cited 31×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict and damage awards, finding sufficient evidence for punitive damages and upholding the trial court's rulings on evidentiary matters and jury instructions.
• United States v. Hornick
  815 F.2d 1156· 7th Cir.· 1987-04-14 ·cited 30×
  Technical defects in a warrant do not require suppression of evidence, and statements made at a drug treatment center are admissible for sentencing purposes. Credit for pre-sentence time is determined by the Attorney General, not the sentencing court.
• In re Grand Jury Empanelled October 18
  633 F.2d 276· 3d Cir.· 1980-06-26 ·cited 30×
  A coercive contempt sanction may be imposed if the government seeks the husband's indictment before a different grand jury and severs any trial.
• United States v. Lilley
  581 F.2d 182· 8th Cir.· 1978-08-09 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the admission of Agent Buchholz's testimony repeating Mr. Lilley's statement was hearsay and not admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(B), and that Mr. Lilley's testimony against appellant violated the marital privilege.
• McINNIS v. A.M.F., Inc.
  765 F.2d 240· 1st Cir.· 1985-06-13 ·cited 28×
  The court held that admitting evidence of a plaintiff's settlement with a third-party tortfeasor to prove causation was error under Federal Rule of Evidence 408, requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Meagher
  531 F.2d 752· 5th Cir.· 1976-05-14 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the physician-patient privilege does not exist in federal criminal trials and that the defendant's correspondence did not constitute confessions violating his Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights.
• Kaufman v. Hon. David N. Edelstein
  539 F.2d 811· 2d Cir.· 1976-04-20 ·cited 26×
  The denial of a motion to quash subpoenas for expert witnesses is neither appealable nor subject to a writ of mandamus.
• WM. T. Thompson Co. v. Gen. Nutrition Corp., Inc.
  671 F.2d 100· 3d Cir.· 1982-02-08 ·cited 24×
  The court held that in a case with both federal and state law claims, federal common law, not state privilege law, governs the admissibility of evidence, and thus a Pennsylvania accountant-client privilege does not apply to discovery sought for federal antitrust claims.
• United States v. Cornell Byrd
  750 F.2d 585· 7th Cir.· 1984-12-10 ·cited 22×
  Communications between permanently separated spouses are not protected by the marital communications privilege, and evidence of other contemplated arsons is admissible if relevant to plan or intent.
• In re Subpoena Served Upon Jorge S. Zuniga, M.D.
  714 F.2d 632· 6th Cir.· 1983-08-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that while a psychotherapist-patient privilege exists, it does not protect the identity of patients or the dates and times of their treatment, and disclosure to an insurer waives the privilege.
• United States v. LaRita Anne Bolzer
  556 F.2d 948· 9th Cir.· 1977-06-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a variance between the indictment and proof regarding the location of surveillance was not fatal because it did not affect the defendants' substantial rights, and that testimony from an ex-wife about clothing was admissible as it did not involve confidential m
• Garrett v. City & Cnty. OF SAN Francisco
  818 F.2d 1515· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-10 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court erred by granting summary judgment without first ruling on the plaintiff's discovery motion, and that the state court proceedings did not collaterally estop the plaintiff's Title VII disparate treatment claim.
• Northrop Corp. v. McDONNELL Douglas Corp.
  751 F.2d 395· D.C. Cir.· 1984-12-28 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in upholding the state secrets privilege asserted by DOD, but did abuse its discretion in quashing the subpoena to the State Department entirely without considering modification.
• Stonehocker v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  587 F.2d 151· 4th Cir.· 1978-11-17 ·cited 20×
  The court held that compliance with a federal safety standard, even if enacted after the vehicle's manufacture, is admissible as evidence of due care in a design defect case. The court also found the jury instructions regarding punitive damages were improper.
• United States v. Davies
  768 F.2d 893· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-25 ·cited 19×
  The court held that a parent-child privilege does not exist in federal criminal cases and that the investigative stops of the defendant were permissible under the Fourth Amendment.
• United States v. Sims
  755 F.2d 1239· 6th Cir.· 1985-02-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that confidential marital communications concerning joint, patently illegal activity fall under the "joint participants" exception to the marital communications privilege.
• United States v. Smith
  533 F.2d 1077· 8th Cir.· 1976-04-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the marital privilege, both for confidential communications and for testimony against a spouse, does not apply in this case, affirming the conviction.
• United States v. Allery
  526 F.2d 1362· 8th Cir.· 1975-12-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the marital privilege should not be expanded to permit testimony by a spouse concerning crimes allegedly done to a child of either spouse.
• United States v. Corona
  849 F.2d 562· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting portions of the defendant's drug treatment records or the testimony of his psychotherapist, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• In re Grand Jury Investigation OF William B. Hugle. William B. Hugle v. United States
  754 F.2d 863· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-01 ·cited 16×
  A non-witness spouse has standing to assert the marital privilege in grand jury proceedings, and the court may intervene if there is a clear potential for privilege violation.
• In re Dinnan v. Bd. OF Regents OF the Univ. Sys. OF Ga.
  661 F.2d 426· 5th Cir.· 1981-11-16 ·cited 16×
  No evidentiary privilege protects a professor's vote on a tenure application, even under the guise of academic freedom or a secret ballot, when the information is relevant to a claim of discrimination.
• Socialist Workers Party v. Grubisic
  619 F.2d 641· 7th Cir.· 1980-04-15 ·cited 15×
  Federal courts must defer to state courts for initial disclosure requests of state grand jury materials, respecting principles of comity.
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings. Sam Rabin v. United States
  896 F.2d 1267· 11th Cir.· 1990-03-02 ·cited 14×
  The court vacated its previous panel opinion and ordered a rehearing en banc, indicating a re-evaluation of the 'last link doctrine' in light of the crime/fraud exception to attorney-client privilege.
• United States v. Ron "Ronnie" Jones
  683 F.2d 817· 4th Cir.· 1982-06-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an adult, emancipated individual cannot refuse to testify before a grand jury based on a claimed familial privilege or retaliation.
• Pritchard-Keang NAM Corp. v. Jaworski
  751 F.2d 277· 8th Cir.· 1984-12-28 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the crime-fraud exception does not apply to the Watson, Ess report because it was not communicated to further a crime or fraud.
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings. Appeal of Mitchell Hermann
  664 F.2d 423· 5th Cir.· 1981-11-10 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the privilege against adverse spousal testimony should be honored when a spouse is being investigated for conspiracy and the other spouse's testimony could incriminate them.
• Reinsurance Co. OF Am., Inc. v. Administratia Asigurarilor de Stat (Administration OF State Insurance)
  902 F.2d 1275· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-25 ·cited 12×
  Foreign secrecy laws cannot block discovery of assets under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 when a judgment has been rendered.
• United States v. Roberson
  859 F.2d 1376· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-20 ·cited 12×
  The marital communications privilege does not apply to communications between spouses who are separated and whose marriage has failed at the time of the communication.
• Cerro Gordo Charity v. Fireman's Fund Am. Life Ins. Co.
  819 F.2d 1471· 8th Cir.· 1987-05-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the transcript of a psychiatrist's prior testimony was admissible and that it was permissible to call a witness to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege before the jury in a civil case.