Federal Rule Of Evidence 703

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

• Clinchfield R.R. Co. v. Lynch
  784 F.2d 545· 4th Cir.· 1986-02-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in placing the burden of proof on the counties to establish specific assessment ratios for personal property and in admitting expert testimony based on Census Bureau data.
• Cashman v. Allied Prods. Corp.
  761 F.2d 1250· 8th Cir.· 1985-05-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury's award of lost profits was supported by sufficient evidence and that the district court properly admitted expert testimony regarding those profits. The court also affirmed the denial of prejudgment interest and lost officers' salaries.
• Cunningham v. Rendezvous, Inc.
  699 F.2d 676· 4th Cir.· 1983-01-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred by requiring a finding of fraud to pierce the corporate veil, but affirmed the dismissal of claims against the shipyards and the exclusion of certain expert testimony.
• FOX v. Taylor Diving & Salvage Co.
  694 F.2d 1349· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff was not a Jones Act seaman because his work was not substantially related to maritime activities and the injury did not occur on a vessel, and affirmed the trial court's procedural ruling to exclude the Jones Act claim.
• Cella v. United States
  998 F.2d 418· 7th Cir.· 1993-06-23 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting expert testimony regarding medical causation and that the findings of fact regarding causation were not clearly erroneous, affirming the judgment.
• Ambrosini v. Jorge Labarraque, M.D.
  966 F.2d 1464· D.C. Cir.· 1992-06-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment prematurely by misapplying precedent and failing to adequately inquire into the basis of expert testimony.
• Blumenfeld v. Stuppi
  921 F.2d 116· 7th Cir.· 1990-12-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding psychiatric testimony as a discovery sanction and in denying a motion for a new trial based on an allegedly inadequate damages award.
• Manocchio v. Moran
  919 F.2d 770· 1st Cir.· 1990-09-24 ·cited 8×
  The introduction of an autopsy report without the personal presence of the medical examiner who prepared it does not violate the Confrontation Clause if the report possesses particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.
• United States v. Ifeanyi Monu
  782 F.2d 1209· 4th Cir.· 1986-02-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that expert testimony regarding heroin purity and the use of a scale as a tool of the trade was admissible, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction under the Travel Act.
• United States v. Arias
  639 F.2d 1183· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Government sufficiently proved the seized substance was L-cocaine beyond a reasonable doubt and that Arias's conviction for telephone use was not impermissibly inconsistent with his acquittal on other charges.
• Wilder Enters., Inc. v. Allied Artists Pictures Corp.
  632 F.2d 1135· 4th Cir.· 1980-10-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to submit the issue of conspiracy to a jury against certain film exhibitors and distributors, and that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for them.
• United States v. 478.34 Acres OF Land
  578 F.2d 156· 6th Cir.· 1978-06-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court erred in admitting unreliable statistical survey evidence and in excluding expert testimony regarding the potential for residential development, requiring a new trial.
• The First Nat'l Bank OF Kenosha v. United States
  763 F.2d 891· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-07 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of a post-death partnership agreement and comparable property sales, and that the jury's valuation verdict had a reasonable basis in the record.
• Henderson v. Ford Motor Co.
  72 F.4th 1237· 11th Cir.· 2023-07-05 ·cited 6×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's evidentiary rulings and denial of JMOL and new trial, and dismissed Ford's cross-appeal for lack of standing.
• CBS, Inc. v. PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture
  9 F. Supp. 2d 1333· S.D. Fla.· 1998-05-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Satellite Home Viewers Act's definition of 'unserved household' relies on an objective FCC standard for signal intensity, not subjective subscriber reports of picture quality. PrimeTime 24's reliance on subscriber self-reporting is insufficient to comply w
• Head v. Lithonia Corp., Inc.
  881 F.2d 941· 10th Cir.· 1989-08-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to inquire into the reliability of topographical brain mapping evidence, which lacked a proper foundation and acceptance in the scientific community.
• Lubin Quinones v. Pa. Gen. Ins. Co.
  804 F.2d 1167· 10th Cir.· 1986-11-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)'s 100-mile bulge provision extends personal jurisdiction to the extent of the bulge area, provided due process is satisfied, and that the collateral source rule does not apply when the plaintiff's insurer is also the defend
• Mrs. Loretta G. Krause Curry v. Chevron
  779 F.2d 272· 5th Cir.· 1985-12-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) is not the exclusive remedy for wrongful death claims and that state law claims can be brought alongside DOHSA claims, allowing for a jury trial. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of claims where negligence was no
• Lindsey v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co.
  775 F.2d 1322· 5th Cir.· 1985-11-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find the plaintiff was an employee of the railroad under FELA, and that the admission of expert testimony was within the trial court's discretion.
• United States v. Reynaldo De Jesus Ramos
  725 F.2d 1322· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant could be convicted and sentenced under both 18 U.S.C.A. § 1001 and 18 U.S.C.A. § 1542 because each statute requires proof of a fact that the other does not, satisfying the Blockburger test.
• Lima v. United States
  708 F.2d 502· 10th Cir.· 1983-05-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in striking expert testimony based on unreliable data, in placing the burden of proof on the plaintiff for causation, or in its findings of fact. The court affirmed the dismissal of the action.
• Petruzzi's Iga Supermarkets, Inc. v. Darling-Delaware Co., Inc.
  998 F.2d 1224· 3d Cir.· 1993-07-13 ·cited 5×
  The court held that evidence of an agreement not to solicit competitors' customers, coupled with other circumstantial evidence, can be sufficient to defeat summary judgment in an antitrust case. However, mere opportunity to conspire or socialization among competitors is insuffici
• Odis Robertson v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
  954 F.2d 1433· 8th Cir.· 1992-01-27 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence under 23 U.S.C. § 409, nor in excluding evidence of subsequent incidents.
• Hockett v. United States
  730 F.2d 709· 11th Cir.· 1984-04-23 ·cited 5×
  The government cannot challenge the admissibility of expert testimony on appeal when it failed to object contemporaneously at trial.
• United States v. Smith
  964 F.2d 1221· D.C. Cir.· 1992-06-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that expert testimony based on a subordinate's inadmissible hearsay report was permissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 703, and any error in admitting the report was harmless.
• United States v. Ware
  914 F.2d 997· 7th Cir.· 1990-10-01 ·cited 4×
  An Illinois police officer's observation of a shotgun in plain view through a vehicle's window in Indiana did not constitute a search, and exigent circumstances justified its retrieval. Expert testimony regarding a firearm's interstate travel, based on industry research, is admis
• Schultz v. Thomas
  832 F.2d 108· 7th Cir.· 1987-10-27 ·cited 4×
  The admission of a state trial judge's testimony and decision regarding witness credibility in a subsequent federal civil rights trial constitutes an abuse of discretion and reversible error.
• Johnson v. Consol. Rail Corp.
  797 F.2d 1440· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-04 ·cited 4×
  The jury verdict is supported by the evidence, jury instructions were appropriate, expert testimony was properly admitted, and damage awards were not excessive.
• United States v. Shields
  573 F.2d 18· 10th Cir.· 1978-03-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the admission of handwriting expert testimony was proper under Fed. Rules Evid. Rule 703, and the admission of the firearm was permissible based on oral consent to search, despite the exclusion of a written consent form. Ineffective assistance of counsel claim
• United States v. Farley
  992 F.2d 1122· 10th Cir.· 1993-05-05 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in allowing closed circuit testimony for the child victim and admitting certain hearsay statements, as these rulings were supported by the evidence and relevant legal standards.
• AU Rustproofing Ctr., Inc. v. Gulf OIL Corp.
  755 F.2d 1231· 6th Cir.· 1985-02-28 ·cited 3×
  The court held that Gulf's failure to provide ten days' written notice before terminating the Provisional Payback Agreements precluded recovery on its counterclaim for unamortized loans related to those agreements. The court also reversed a directed verdict for Gulf on Au's coope
• Merit Motors, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp.
  569 F.2d 666· D.C. Cir.· 1977-12-20 ·cited 3×
  Summary judgment for the defendant was proper because the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence of injury resulting from the alleged antitrust violations.
• Sterling v. Provident Life & Accident Ins.
  619 F. Supp. 2d 1242· M.D. Fla.· 2009-03-27 ·cited 2×
  Summary judgment is granted for defendants on the repudiation claim and certain other claims, but denied on the negligent infliction of emotional distress and breach of good faith and fair dealing claims due to genuine issues of material fact. Unum's motion to dismiss breach of c
• Williams v. Publix Warehouse
  131 F.R.D. 71· M.D. Fla.· 1993-09-23 ·cited 2×
• Mendes-Silva v. United States
  980 F.2d 1482· D.C. Cir.· 1993-01-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because the plaintiff's expert testimony met the admissibility standard under Federal Rule of Evidence 703 and was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding causation.
• Blancha v. Raymark Indus.
  972 F.2d 507· 3d Cir.· 1992-08-07 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge believes the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial due to prejudicial expert testimony.
• Coal Res., Inc. v. Gulf & W. Indus., Inc.
  954 F.2d 1263· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while most of the expert testimony was admissible under the law of the case doctrine due to changed circumstances, the expert was not qualified to testify on the cost of a coal preparation plant, warranting a remittitur.
• United States v. A & S Council OIL Co.
  947 F.2d 1128· 4th Cir.· 1991-10-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while polygraph results are generally inadmissible to prove the truth of their results, a defendant should be allowed to cross-examine an expert witness about polygraph results the expert considered in forming an opinion about a key government witness's credib
• Osie Cook, Jr. v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp.
  940 F.2d 207· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's evidentiary rulings, while potentially erroneous in some instances, did not constitute reversible error and that the defective notice of appeal did not deprive the court of jurisdiction.
• Est. OF Mark Carey v. Hy-Temp Mfg., Inc.
  929 F.2d 1229· 7th Cir.· 1991-04-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on Hy-Temp's duty to warn and in granting a directed verdict for TOD, requiring a new trial.
• Broan Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Associated Distribs., Inc.
  923 F.2d 1232· 6th Cir.· 1991-01-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in excluding evidence of lost future profits, but correctly allowed damages for future mistaken product liability claims. The case is remanded for a new trial on damages.
• Kohl v. Woodhaven Learning Ctr.
  865 F.2d 930· 8th Cir.· 1989-01-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court correctly found the proposed accommodations reasonable, making the plaintiff an "otherwise qualified handicapped individual" under the Rehabilitation Act, but erred in denying attorneys' fees.
• William G. Newman to his own use & to the use of Emp'rs of Wausau Ins. Co. & William G. Newman & Bernice M. Newman v. Hy-Way Heat Sys., Inc.
  789 F.2d 269· 4th Cir.· 1986-02-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that striking the expert's testimony was not an abuse of discretion and that the plaintiffs' evidence was insufficient to establish causation for negligence or strict liability claims.
• United States v. 1
  739 F.2d 1371· 8th Cir.· 1984-08-01 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the introduction of hydrology data and expert testimony was permissible and that the condemnation commission's report was adequate.
• United States v. Mann
  712 F.2d 941· 4th Cir.· 1983-07-27 ·cited 2×
  An expert may base opinion testimony on facts or data made known at or before the hearing, even if those facts originate from a layman's testimony, provided they are reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.
• The Upjohn Co. v. Rachelle Labs., Inc.
  661 F.2d 1105· 6th Cir.· 1981-10-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing a contributory negligence instruction for breach of implied warranty and that the damages awarded were supported by sufficient evidence.
• Hudspeth v. Comm'r OF Internal Revenue Serv.
  914 F.2d 1207· 9th Cir.· 1990-09-13 ·cited 1×
  The tax court correctly held the tax benefit rule inapplicable but erred in excluding evidence of a prior settlement under Federal Rule of Evidence 408's bias exception.
• Greenwich Ins. Co. v. Fernandez
  S.D. Fla.· 2026-01-17
  The court held that expert testimony offering legal conclusions on insurance policy interpretation or the legal consequences of parties' conduct is inadmissible under the Daubert standard, but testimony on industry standards may be admissible to assist the trier of fact.
• 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).
• Aroma360 LLC v. Scentiment, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-12-04
  The court held that challenges to the factual basis or methodology of expert testimony generally go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility, but expert testimony offering legal conclusions is inadmissible.