Federal Rule Of Evidence 602

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

• United States v. Ghassan L. Ammar
  714 F.2d 238· 3d Cir.· 1983-06-30 ·cited 140×
  The court held that while the district court was not required to hold an in limine hearing, it should have made explicit credibility findings when the evidence aliunde relied on witness testimony whose credibility was challenged.
• United States v. Giovannetti
  919 F.2d 1223· 7th Cir.· 1990-12-05 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the 'ostrich' instruction was improperly given because there was no evidence that the defendant deliberately avoided acquiring knowledge of the illegal activity. The court also held that the government waived its statute of limitations argument by failing to c
• Durflinger v. Artiles
  727 F.2d 888· 10th Cir.· 1984-01-27 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting or excluding evidence, nor in his jury instructions, and affirmed the trial court's decision.
• United States v. Duncan
  919 F.2d 981· 5th Cir.· 1990-12-14 ·cited 37×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the district court's rulings on venue, evidence, jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence, or sentencing.
• Teen-Ed, Inc. v. Kimball Int'l, Inc.
  620 F.2d 399· 3d Cir.· 1980-04-23 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the trial court erred in precluding a lay witness's testimony regarding lost profits solely because the witness was not identified as an expert, when the testimony was based on personal knowledge and admissible under Rule 701.
• United States v. Owens
  789 F.2d 750· 9th Cir.· 1986-05-12 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the victim's out-of-court identification was inadmissible hearsay because the victim's memory loss prevented effective cross-examination, violating the Confrontation Clause. However, the error was deemed harmless due to other evidence.
• United States v. Sanchez-Robles
  927 F.2d 1070· 9th Cir.· 1991-03-20 ·cited 30×
  The Ninth Circuit held that a 'deliberate ignorance' instruction was inappropriate because the evidence only supported actual knowledge or complete lack of knowledge, not conscious avoidance of the truth. The court reversed the conviction due to the improper instruction.
• United States v. Verne Allen Lyon
  567 F.2d 777· 8th Cir.· 1977-12-09 ·cited 30×
  The court held that evidence seized under a search warrant must be suppressed because the affidavit supporting the warrant failed to establish probable cause. The court affirmed the bail jumping conviction.
• United States v. Ranney
  719 F.2d 1183· 1st Cir.· 1983-10-19 ·cited 27×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding that the defendants' objections regarding collateral estoppel, hypothetical questions, Brady violations, and prosecutorial misconduct were unpersuasive.
• United States v. Thomas
  676 F.2d 239· 7th Cir.· 1980-07-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Thomas, Maddox, and Roberts on three counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2313, but reversed Robert White's conviction on Count II due to insufficient evidence of his involvement.
• United States v. Kupau
  781 F.2d 740· 9th Cir.· 1986-01-28 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court's procedural errors, including allowing an FBI agent to play tapes for the jury ex parte and providing the jury with a dictionary, were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The exclusion of expert testimony was also not manifestly erroneous.
• Schertz v. Waupaca Cnty.
  875 F.2d 578· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-21 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the existence of probable cause for arrest is an absolute bar to a Section 1983 claim for unlawful arrest or imprisonment, and that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.
• United States v. van Dorn
  925 F.2d 1331· 11th Cir.· 1991-03-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in restricting cross-examination of a government witness regarding his prior drug prosecution and alleged threats, nor in admitting testimony about a defendant's affiliation with the Gambino crime family and expe
• Morel v. Sabine Towing & Transp. Co., Inc.
  669 F.2d 345· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-05 ·cited 22×
  Maintenance is not offset by paid vacation time, and the evidence supported the awarded daily rate, as ambiguities are resolved in favor of the seaman.
• LEE v. The Nat'l Life Assurance Co. OF Canada
  632 F.2d 524· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-10 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the insured's intent to deceive.
• Eichman v. Fotomat Corp.
  871 F.2d 784· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-17 ·cited 20×
  The court held that prior judgments barred claims under res judicata and that the statute of limitations barred other claims, affirming the district court's summary judgment.
• Carter v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc.
  716 F.2d 344· 5th Cir.· 1983-10-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial judge's exclusion of industry custom evidence was harmless error and that the plaintiff's expert witness testimony was admissible.
• Agfa-Gevaert v. A.B. Dick Co.
  879 F.2d 1518· 7th Cir.· 1989-07-18 ·cited 17×
  The court agrees with the judgment but notes the contract is ambiguous, requiring further proceedings.
• United States v. Quinn Hickey
  917 F.2d 901· 6th Cir.· 1990-10-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to impose a fine, as the defendant failed to prove an inability to pay. The conviction is affirmed, but the sentence is vacated and remanded for resentencing.
• United States v. Owens
  844 F.2d 701· 9th Cir.· 1988-04-19 ·cited 16×
  The court remanded the case for the district court to rule on a Rule 602 objection regarding witness personal knowledge, as the Supreme Court had reversed the prior decision on Confrontation Clause grounds.
• United States v. Neal
  743 F.2d 1441· 10th Cir.· 1984-09-04 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the defendant's conviction, finding that certain spousal communications, even those related to criminal activity, may not be protected by the confidential marital communications privilege.
• JOY Mfg. Co. v. Sola Basic Indus., Inc.
  697 F.2d 104· 3d Cir.· 1982-12-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow the defendant to amend its pretrial statement to include a warranty disclaimer and by striking the plaintiff's damage testimony.
• Kaczmarek v. Allied Chem. Corp.
  836 F.2d 1055· 7th Cir.· 1987-12-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Illinois tort law should apply to the claim against Allied Chemical, Indiana law to the claim against U.S. Steel, and Indiana law to the claim against Ever-Tite. New trials were ordered for Allied Chemical and U.S. Steel, while the judgment for Ever-Tite was a
• United States v. Villard
  885 F.2d 117· 3d Cir.· 1989-09-19 ·cited 9×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the witness's testimony, viewed favorably to the government, was sufficient to support the jury's findings of lascivious display and the subject's minority status.
• Hallquist v. Local 276, Plumbers & Pipe-Fitters Union, AFL-CIO
  843 F.2d 18· 1st Cir.· 1988-03-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court's finding of intentional sex discrimination was not clearly erroneous, affirming the judgment.
• In re Jaques v. Reiss S.S. Co.
  761 F.2d 302· 6th Cir.· 1985-05-06 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding the contempt proceedings civil in nature and that the appellant was not prejudiced by the lack of specification.
• M. B. A. F. B. Fed. Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Soc'y, Inc.
  681 F.2d 930· 4th Cir.· 1982-06-17 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial judge erred by failing to strike deposition testimony not based on personal knowledge, which was prejudicial to the defendant.
• King v. Auto
  21 F. Supp. 2d 1370· N.D. Fla.· 1998-03-28 ·cited 7×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding hostile environment sexual harassment and disparate treatment in promotion, thus denying summary judgment on these claims.
• Johnson v. Scotty's, Inc.
  119 F. Supp. 2d 1276· M.D. Fla.· 2000-09-07 ·cited 6×
  The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to strike affidavits and denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
• Barrett v. United States
  965 F.2d 1184· 1st Cir.· 1992-06-08 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the motion to vacate, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate entitlement to relief or an evidentiary hearing on his claims.
• Shamblin's Ready MIX, Inc. v. Eaton Corp.
  873 F.2d 736· 4th Cir.· 1989-05-01 ·cited 4×
  The Seventh Amendment does not require a jury to determine the amount of punitive damages, and an appellate court may reduce an excessive punitive damages award without remanding for a new trial.
• United States v. Owens-El
  889 F.2d 913· 9th Cir.· 1989-11-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding sufficient evidence for the jury to infer the victim had personal knowledge of his assailant's identity, and alternatively, any error in admitting the testimony was harmless.
• Gary W. v. The State OF La.
  861 F.2d 1366· 5th Cir.· 1988-12-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a special master, performing quasi-judicial functions, is not subject to deposition regarding their mental processes in making recommendations.
• Las Brisas v. Empire Indem. Ins.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-10
  The court denied the insurer's motion in limine, finding that the insured's theory that a mistaken payment was made to delay appraisal was a question for the jury.
• Treminio v. Crowley Mar. Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-02-01
  The court held that evidence of a settlement offer is admissible to refute affirmative defenses, and employee complaints against supervisors are admissible to show notice and establish a modus operandi, subject to certain limitations.
• Wherevertv, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-03-28
  The court granted-in-part and denied-in-part various motions in limine filed by both parties, ruling on the admissibility of anticipated evidence and testimony for an upcoming trial.
• Esteban-Garcia v. Wal-Mart Stores E. LP
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-11-08
  The court granted in part and denied in part various motions in limine, ruling on the admissibility of evidence concerning discovery disclosures, witness testimony, prior incidents, and internal company policies.
• Fox v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co., LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-07-11
  The court held that declarations from a party's attorney, containing inferences and arguments rather than mere summaries of voluminous documents, are inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 and should be stricken.
• Fox v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co., LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-06-15
  The court held that the late filing of the Francis Declaration was due to excusable neglect and that the declaration was admissible for its ministerial purpose of identifying exhibits.
• Beal v. 3m Co.
  N.D. Fla.· 2022-04-20
  The court ruled on various motions in limine, determining the admissibility of evidence related to plaintiff's complaints, expert testimony, VA records, and personal history.
• Plain Bay Sales, LLC v. Gallaher
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-02-15
  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.
• Ocasio v. C.R. Bard, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-07-05
  The court granted in part and denied in part various motions in limine, ruling on the admissibility of evidence and testimony for an upcoming product liability trial.
• Chandler v. United States
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-08-21
  The court held that the Petitioner's motion to vacate sentence was timely filed under the prison mailbox rule and that his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were meritless.
• McCRARY-EL v. Shaw
  992 F.2d 809· 8th Cir.· 1993-05-06
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding witness testimony, admitting a videotape, or admitting conduct violation reports, and that any error in refusing a jury instruction regarding missing evidence was harmless.
• The United States for the Use & Benefit of Conveyor Rental & Sales Co. v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  981 F.2d 448· 9th Cir.· 1992-12-10
  The court held that the Tribe was a materialman, not a subcontractor, and therefore Conveyor Rental was not protected by the Miller Act payment bond.
• United States v. Jerri C. Lewis
  833 F.2d 1380· 9th Cir.· 1987-12-11
  The court held that the district court erred in suppressing the confession based on the judge's personal experience with anesthesia, and that the second confession was admissible as it was sufficiently attenuated from any prior unwarned statement.