Federal Rule Of Evidence 803(8)

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

• United States v. Oates
  560 F.2d 45· 2d Cir.· 1977-06-03 ·cited 256×
  The court held that the chemist's report and worksheet were inadmissible hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence, requiring reversal and a new trial.
• Marks v. Prattco, Inc.
  607 F.2d 1153· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-07 ·cited 75×
  The court affirmed the finding of employment discrimination and the award of attorney's fees, but remanded for recalculation of back pay. The court also affirmed the amendment of the complaint to substitute the correct party.
• Cohen v. Ill. Inst. OF Tech.
  524 F.2d 818· 7th Cir.· 1975-10-28 ·cited 60×
  A private university's alleged discrimination against women faculty does not constitute action under color of state law for § 1983, nor is a conspiracy to violate Fourteenth Amendment rights actionable under § 1985(3) without state action.
• Melville v. Am. Home Assurance Co.
  584 F.2d 1306· 3d Cir.· 1978-10-05 ·cited 53×
  The court held that Pennsylvania's choice of law rules would extend its modern flexible conflicts methodology to contract actions, and under that analysis, Delaware law, not New York law, should govern the presumption against suicide in this insurance policy dispute.
• Baker v. Elcona Homes Corp. & Joseph L. Slabach
  588 F.2d 551· 6th Cir.· 1978-12-08 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the police accident report was admissible under the public records exception to the hearsay rule, and other alleged errors were either harmless or properly submitted to the jury.
• Nachtsheim v. Beech Aircraft Corp.
  847 F.2d 1261· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-26 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of a prior similar accident and in redacting a portion of an incident report, as the evidence was not substantially similar or was unduly prejudicial.
• Garcia v. Alton V. W. Gloor
  609 F.2d 156· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-04 ·cited 26×
  An employer's rule prohibiting bilingual employees from speaking anything but English in public areas while on the job is not discrimination based on national origin under Title VII.
• Robbins v. Whelan
  653 F.2d 47· 1st Cir.· 1981-07-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the appellant failed to properly state the purpose for which evidence was offered, thus waiving the right to claim error on appeal regarding its exclusion.
• United States v. Sandor Regner
  677 F.2d 754· 9th Cir.· 1982-05-19 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of prior insurance claims was not an abuse of discretion, a continuance granted was sufficient, and the admission of foreign public documents did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
• Lamphere v. Brown Univ.
  685 F.2d 743· 1st Cir.· 1982-07-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding that the university's reasons for its employment decisions were not pretexts for illegal sex discrimination, and that statistical evidence was not relevant to the individual claims.
• United States v. Union Nacional de Trabajadores
  576 F.2d 388· 1st Cir.· 1978-05-23 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the criminal contempt convictions of the Union and its Secretary-Treasurer, and that claims regarding wiretapping and selective prosecution were without merit.
• United States v. Hardin
  710 F.2d 1231· 7th Cir.· 1983-06-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, as the defendant knowingly and voluntarily consented to the search of his clothing, and the admission of the DEA statistical graph was proper under the hearsay exception for public records.
• Donald v. Balfour J. Rast
  927 F.2d 379· 8th Cir.· 1991-03-01 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial court erred in excluding evidence, thus denying the appellant a fair trial.
• Travelers Ins. Co. v. Riggs
  671 F.2d 810· 4th Cir.· 1982-02-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's technical error in substituting the subrogated insurer as the sole plaintiff was harmless and that federal procedural rules, not conflicting state law, govern joinder in diversity cases.
• Clark Eng'g & Constr. Co. v. United Bhd. OF Carpenters & Joiners OF Am.
  510 F.2d 1075· 6th Cir.· 1975-02-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in instructing the jury that Section 502 of the LMRA provided a defense to a secondary boycott and in admitting evidence of the NLRB's dismissal of unfair labor practice charges.
• United States v. Bowers
  920 F.2d 220· 4th Cir.· 1990-11-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellants' conviction for income tax evasion was proper, as their argument regarding IRS publication requirements was inapplicable to the charge of evasion and the admission of IRS records was permissible.
• Ballesteros v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd.
  1990 WL 47626· S.D. Fla.· 2013-02-13 ·cited 1×
• Pearson v. Deutsche Bank AG
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-04-05
  The court held that indictments alleging defendants were victims of a Ponzi scheme are inadmissible hearsay and unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403, and thus must be excluded.
• Nbis Constr. & Transp. Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Liebherr-America, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-08-03
  A crane manufacturer's subsidiary was found liable for negligence in failing to timely provide critical safety warnings about a dangerous crane component and for providing incomplete training to new equipment operators, which combined to cause a catastrophic boom collapse that ki