Federal Rule Of Evidence 501

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

• In re Witness Before the Grand Jury. United States v. Witness Before the Grand Jury
  791 F.2d 234· 2d Cir.· 1986-05-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the confidential communications marital privilege does not apply to communications made after a permanent separation, and that the adverse testimony privilege does not apply to a moribund marriage.
• In re Grand Jury Subpoena of Dominic A. Santarelli, Jr.
  740 F.2d 816· 11th Cir.· 1984-08-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on a claimed parent-child privilege and in holding the appellant in contempt for refusing to testify before a grand jury.
• United States v. Broome
  732 F.2d 363· 4th Cir.· 1984-04-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that communications between spouses regarding crimes in which they are jointly participating are not protected by the marital privilege and thus do not preclude the application of the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule.
• United States v. Sykes
  697 F.2d 87· 2d Cir.· 1983-01-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to amend the plea agreement after the notice of appeal was filed, and the double jeopardy claim was without merit.
• In re Grand Jury Investigation. Vickie Hipes (a witness) v. United States
  603 F.2d 786· 9th Cir.· 1979-09-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the marital communications privilege protects information conveyed privately between spouses, and the government failed to overcome the presumption of confidentiality.
• In re Bevill
  805 F.2d 120· 3d Cir.· 1986-11-13 ·cited 11×
  A corporate officer cannot assert a personal attorney-client privilege to prevent disclosure of communications concerning corporate matters when the corporation's privilege has been waived by the trustee. The joint defense privilege requires affirmative proof of a common defense
• Admiral Ins. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. OF Ariz.
  881 F.2d 1486· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that there is no unavailability exception to the attorney-client privilege, even when a witness invokes the Fifth Amendment. Statements made by corporate employees to counsel in anticipation of litigation are protected.
• In re Grand Jury Subpoena Issued to Lawrence Matthews. Lawrence Matthews v. United States
  714 F.2d 223· 2d Cir.· 1983-08-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that there is no established 'family privilege' beyond the spousal privilege that would allow a witness to refuse to answer questions that might incriminate his in-laws.
• Samuelson v. Susen
  576 F.2d 546· 3d Cir.· 1978-04-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Federal Rule of Evidence 501 requires application of the forum state's privilege law in diversity cases, and that Ohio Revised Code § 2305.251, being procedural, applies retroactively to bar discovery of medical review committee proceedings.
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings-Subpoena to State Attorney's Off. Thomas H. Greene
  832 F.2d 554· 11th Cir.· 1987-10-26 ·cited 9×
  The court held that a grand jury proceeding is not a civil action for purposes of interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), but the Perlman exception allows appeal of an order denying a motion to quash a subpoena when a third party asserts a privilege. However, Florida law
• In re DOE v. Diamond
  964 F.2d 1325· 2d Cir.· 1992-06-01 ·cited 8×
  The court recognized a psychotherapist-patient privilege but held that the need for evidence concerning the appellant's history of mental illness outweighed his privacy interests in this case.
• Mollie Ann Dunn v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
  927 F.2d 869· 5th Cir.· 1991-04-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the insurer had arguable reasons to deny the claim, thus precluding punitive damages, and that the documents were protected by attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine.
• Ass'n FOR Reduction OF Violence v. Hall
  734 F.2d 63· 1st Cir.· 1984-05-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a grant of summary judgment based on privileged documents, which were not discoverable by the non-moving party, must be vacated and remanded.
• United States v. O'Neill
  619 F.2d 222· 3d Cir.· 1980-03-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the City's assertion of executive privilege was improper due to its informal, broad, and indiscriminate nature, and that the district court erred in denying enforcement of the administrative subpoenas without proper consideration.
• United States v. Gillock
  587 F.2d 284· 6th Cir.· 1978-11-01 ·cited 8×
  A federally indicted state senator is entitled to a common law speech or debate privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501, protecting legislative acts and motivations from being questioned in a federal prosecution.
• In re Pebsworth
  705 F.2d 261· 7th Cir.· 1983-04-22 ·cited 7×
  The court affirmed the order requiring adherence to the subpoena, finding that the grand jury needs the information and that disclosure to medical insurers does not waive the doctor-patient privilege in this context.
• United States v. Prouse
  945 F.2d 1017· 8th Cir.· 1991-09-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court properly denied the motion to suppress blood test evidence, finding probable cause for the arrest and that the blood tests were validly obtained. All other claims were also rejected.
• In re the Application of The Am. Tobacco Co. v. The Am. Tobacco Co.
  880 F.2d 1520· 2d Cir.· 1989-07-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to quash the subpoenas and in issuing a protective order, upholding the contempt finding for non-compliance.
• In re Steinberg
  837 F.2d 527· 1st Cir.· 1988-01-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the contents of voluntarily compiled notebooks, even if personal, are not protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and the act of production immunity is sufficient. The adverse spousal privilege does not apply to non-testimonial c
• George and Betty Lorenz v. Valley Forge Ins. Co.
  815 F.2d 1095· 7th Cir.· 1987-03-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of privileged communications between Valley Forge and its attorneys was an error that requires reversal and a new trial.
• In re the Grand Jury Subpoena OF Jean Ford v. United States
  756 F.2d 249· 2d Cir.· 1985-02-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a "use-fruits" immunity promise, coupled with a "Chinese Wall" screening procedure, is sufficient to overcome a witness-spouse's claim of privilege against adverse spousal testimony when the non-witness spouse is a target of the investigation.
• In re Grand Jury Subpoena DTD. January 4
  750 F.2d 223· 2d Cir.· 1984-12-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the record was too sparse to establish or apply a scholar's privilege, reversing the quashing of the subpoena.
• United States v. Klayer
  707 F.2d 892· 6th Cir.· 1983-05-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial judge's conduct was proper trial management, the ex-wife's testimony was admissible, and the prior conviction was admissible for impeachment purposes.
• In re Hampers
  651 F.2d 19· 1st Cir.· 1981-05-20 ·cited 5×
  A qualified privilege under Rule 501 exists for state tax return information, requiring a federal grand jury to show reasonable cause, probative value, and unavailability elsewhere to enforce a subpoena.
• Ward v. Estaleiro Itajai S/A
  541 F. Supp. 2d 1344· S.D. Fla.· 2008-03-31 ·cited 4×
  Florida Statute § 768.72(1), which requires a preliminary showing before discovery of financial worth for punitive damages, is a procedural rule that conflicts with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and is therefore inapplicable in federal diversity actions.
• US Fid. & Guar. v. Liberty Surplus Ins.
  630 F. Supp. 2d 1332· M.D. Fla.· 2007-10-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the inadvertent disclosure of privileged documents resulted in a waiver of the privilege due to the producing party's failure to take reasonable precautions, and that certain documents did not qualify as attorney work product.
• In re Grand Jury Proceedings
  867 F.2d 562· 9th Cir.· 1989-02-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the psychotherapist-patient privilege is not recognized in federal criminal proceedings and that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to voluntarily kept psychiatric records.
• In re Lenard v. Lenard
  849 F.2d 974· 5th Cir.· 1988-07-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a good-faith purchaser in a transaction that renders the debtor insolvent is entitled to recover the price paid, even if the sale is revoked by creditors under the Louisiana revocatory action.
• United Coal Cos. v. Powell Constr. Co. & Interstate Equip. Corp. & Bethlehem Steel Corp.
  839 F.2d 958· 3d Cir.· 1988-02-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for discovery violations, as the attorney-client and work product privileges were improperly disregarded, and the requests for admission were improperly deemed admitted.
• Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Weintraub
  722 F.2d 338· 7th Cir.· 1984-03-19 ·cited 4×
  The trustee of a bankrupt corporation does not have the authority to waive the corporation's attorney-client privilege.
• In re Grand Jury Investigation. Appeal of United States
  918 F.2d 374· 3d Cir.· 1990-10-29 ·cited 3×
  A federal common law clergy-communicant privilege exists and protects confidential communications made to a clergyperson in their spiritual or professional capacity, even in group settings if the third party's presence is essential to the communication.
• In re Grand Jury. In the Matter of Granite Purchases FOR State Capital-Grand Jury Subpoena No. 86-1. Appeal of United States
  821 F.2d 946· 3d Cir.· 1987-06-09 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a qualified common law speech or debate privilege does not protect state legislators from federal grand jury subpoenas for legislative records, as the rationales for the federal congressional privilege do not apply to state legislators in federal proceedings.
• In re Martenson
  779 F.2d 461· 8th Cir.· 1985-12-13 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the marital privilege against adverse spousal testimony was not available because the appellant failed to demonstrate that her anticipated testimony would be adverse to her spouse's protected interests.
• Towbin v. Antonacci
  1899 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2· S.D. Fla.· 2012-12-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Florida's statutory privilege protecting campaign finance investigation documents does not apply in a federal question case, and thus, the documents are discoverable.
• In re Air Crash Near Cali
  959 F. Supp. 1529· S.D. Fla.· 1997-02-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that materials prepared under the Safety Action Partnership (ASAP) program are entitled to a qualified privilege, but must be submitted for in camera review.
• United States v. Morris
  988 F.2d 1335· 4th Cir.· 1993-03-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it is reversible error, subject to harmless error analysis, for a prosecutor to cross-examine the wife of an accused about her invocation of the marital privilege before the grand jury. The court also held that the district judge's prior involvement with a key
• United States v. Foster
  986 F.2d 541· D.C. Cir.· 1993-03-02 ·cited 2×
  A law enforcement officer testifying as an eyewitness may not refuse to answer questions about the location from which observations were made if that information is relevant and helpful to the defense, and the district court erred in sustaining relevancy objections to defense que
• United States v. Thomas A. Moore, M.D.
  970 F.2d 48· 5th Cir.· 1992-08-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the psychotherapist-patient privilege under Louisiana law does not apply in this federal summons enforcement action, and there is no federal psychotherapist-patient privilege that would protect the information sought by the IRS.
• Dowling v. Am. Haw. Cruises, Inc.
  971 F.2d 423· 9th Cir.· 1992-08-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a privilege of self-critical analysis does not protect routine internal corporate safety reviews from discovery, and that the district court erred in applying such a privilege.
• Petersen v. Douglas Cnty. Bank & Tr. Co.
  967 F.2d 1186· 8th Cir.· 1992-06-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the insurer's claim of a confidentiality privilege was properly rejected, but the order to produce documents was too broad as it did not adequately consider the work product doctrine regarding document selection and compilation.
• United States v. Wilson
  960 F.2d 48· 7th Cir.· 1992-04-10 ·cited 2×
  State-created evidentiary privileges do not automatically bind federal courts in federal criminal cases; the federal interest in prosecuting fraud outweighs the state's interest in confidentiality for unemployment records.
• United States v. Cartledge
  928 F.2d 93· 4th Cir.· 1991-03-01 ·cited 2×
  A federal court is not bound by a state statute that creates an evidentiary privilege when enforcing federal criminal statutes; federal law and a balancing of interests control.
• United States v. Talley
  790 F.2d 1468· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-05 ·cited 2×
  Any error in admitting the court-appointed psychiatrist's testimony was harmless because the evidence of the defendant's sanity was overwhelming.
• In re Grand Jury Matter
  764 F.2d 983· 3d Cir.· 1985-06-24 ·cited 2×
  A First Amendment privilege does not protect a grand jury investigation target from complying with a valid subpoena duces tecum; the Fifth Amendment privilege is sufficient.
• United States v. Neville Bruce Thompson
  716 F.2d 248· 4th Cir.· 1983-08-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that admitting the privileged statements of the defendant's wife into evidence was reversible error, and the error was not harmless.
• Armour Int'l Co. & Armour & Co. v. Worldwide Cosmetics, Inc.
  689 F.2d 134· 7th Cir.· 1982-09-28 ·cited 2×
  The Illinois accountant privilege does not apply to audits performed in Japan by accountants not registered in Illinois, even if the accounting firm has a Chicago office.
• Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. v. Kozumi USA Corp.
  61 C.C.A. 91· N.D. Fla.· 2013-01-28 ·cited 1×
  The court held that there is no federal common law private investigator privilege and that Florida's statutory privilege does not apply in this federal question case.
• US Ex Rel. Falsetti v. Southern Bell Telephone
  915 F. Supp. 308· N.D. Fla.· 1996-01-25 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the self-critical analysis privilege does not exist in a qui tam action under the False Claims Act because Congress has already considered and balanced the competing interests in its amendments. The court also found that the defendant waived its right to relit
• United States v. Edwards
  120 F.R.D. 82· M.D. Fla.· 1992-01-21 ·cited 1×
• Everington v. Riesen
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-11
  The court granted Plaintiffs' motion to compel Defendant's tax documents and documents from a prior sealed case, and granted Defendant's motion to compel Plaintiffs' damages calculation and document designations, while denying other requests.