Federal Rule Of Evidence 804(B)(1)

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

• United States v. Azure
  801 F.2d 336· 8th Cir.· 1986-09-17 ·cited 66×
  The court held that a pediatrician's expert opinion testimony regarding the credibility of a child sexual abuse victim invades the province of the jury and is inadmissible under Fed.R.Evid. 702.
• United States v. King
  713 F.2d 627· 11th Cir.· 1983-08-29 ·cited 48×
  The court held that prior trial testimony of a deceased witness, admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1), should not be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 solely because the jury cannot observe the witness's demeanor, especially when the testimony is essentia
• Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp.
  782 F.2d 1156· 4th Cir.· 1986-01-30 ·cited 40×
  The court affirmed the trial court's rulings, finding no error in evidentiary exclusions, jury instructions, or directed verdicts based on insufficient evidence of causation.
• United States v. Klauber
  611 F.2d 512· 4th Cir.· 1979-11-29 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the defendant was not entitled to compel the government to grant use immunity to a defense witness, nor could the trial court impose sanctions for the government's refusal to do so, absent unfair government conduct.
• United States v. Poland
  659 F.2d 884· 9th Cir.· 1981-08-18 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding that even if the trial judge's conduct was improper, it did not significantly prejudice the defendants given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Feldman
  761 F.2d 380· 7th Cir.· 1985-05-01 ·cited 34×
  The admission of a civil deposition in a criminal trial violates the Confrontation Clause and Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(1) if the defendant lacked a meaningful opportunity and similar motive to cross-examine the deponent, and the trial also violated the Speedy Trial Act by commencing le
• United States v. Fernandez
  892 F.2d 976· 11th Cir.· 1990-01-16 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the government presented sufficient evidence of interaction between defendants concerning a common illegal object to support a single conspiracy trial.
• United States v. Salerno
  937 F.2d 797· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-28 ·cited 31×
  The erroneous exclusion of grand jury testimony tainted the entire trial, requiring reversal of all convictions and a new trial for all appealing defendants.
• United States v. Barrett
  766 F.2d 609· 1st Cir.· 1985-06-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, evidentiary rulings were proper, and jury instructions were not erroneously refused.
• In re the Complaint of Paducah Towing Co., Inc. v. Paducah Towing Co., Inc.
  692 F.2d 412· 6th Cir.· 1982-11-02 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred in admitting hearsay testimony and factual findings without proper foundation, and that the Endeavour's crew was also negligent, contributing to the accident.
• Lloyd v. Am. Exp. Lines, Inc.
  580 F.2d 1179· 3d Cir.· 1978-06-22 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred in excluding evidence of a Coast Guard hearing examiner's findings and a Japanese conviction, as these were admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 804(b)(1) and 803(22) respectively. Therefore, a new trial is warranted.
• Baylor v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. OF Educ.
  733 F.2d 1527· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-08 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court's finding of racial discrimination was not clearly erroneous and that the exclusion of the transcript was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Grossman
  843 F.2d 78· 2d Cir.· 1988-03-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to dismiss a superseding indictment returned shortly before trial, nor in failing to grant a continuance, and that the government was not obligated to provide grand jury testimony claimed to b
• Leota A. DeLURYEA v. Winthrop Labs.
  697 F.2d 222· 8th Cir.· 1983-01-05 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding the deposition of a deceased treating physician, as it was admissible under Rule 804(b)(1) and its exclusion substantially prejudiced the defendant.
• United States v. Powell
  894 F.2d 895· 7th Cir.· 1990-01-31 ·cited 20×
  The court held that two counts of conspiracy to distribute different drugs were multiplicitous, requiring vacation of one conviction and resentencing. The court also held that the conviction for using a firearm during a drug trafficking crime was not a violation of double jeopard
• John Ed Clay and wife v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
  722 F.2d 1289· 6th Cir.· 1983-12-07 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the 1979 amendment to Tennessee's statute of limitations, excluding asbestos cases, applies and is not barred by the vested rights doctrine, and that a deceased witness's deposition may be admissible under the 'predecessor in interest' standard. The court also
• Oberlin v. The Marlin Am. Corp. (formerly The Marlin Corporation)
  596 F.2d 1322· 7th Cir.· 1979-04-24 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish an agency relationship between the manufacturer/distributor and the defendants, and that the exclusion of certain deposition testimony was proper.
• Hannah v. City OF Overland
  795 F.2d 1385· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in excluding alibi evidence, deposition testimony, or denying leave to amend, and that any error in admitting prior convictions was harmless.
• United States v. Mathis
  550 F.2d 180· 4th Cir.· 1976-11-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting prior testimony of an unavailable witness and in using a witness's statement from a guilty plea for impeachment.
• Murphy v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.
  779 F.2d 340· 6th Cir.· 1985-12-19 ·cited 15×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the trial court did not err in denying a directed verdict, excluding deposition testimony, or in its jury instructions.
• Murray v. Toyota Motor Distribs., Inc.
  664 F.2d 1377· 9th Cir.· 1982-01-07 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the jury instruction regarding affiliated corporations being incapable of conspiracy as a matter of law was improper, and that a directed verdict on the definition of 'manufacturer' under the Automobile Dealers' Day in Court Act was also error.
• United States v. Ricks
  882 F.2d 885· 4th Cir.· 1989-08-18 ·cited 13×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that collateral estoppel did not apply due to different sovereigns, the search warrant was valid, and evidentiary rulings and jury instructions were proper.
• Clarksville-Montgomery Cnty. Sch. Sys. v. United States Gypsum Co.
  925 F.2d 993· 6th Cir.· 1991-01-10 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
• Vaughn v. Willis
  853 F.2d 1372· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting an unavailable witness' deposition and excluding an impeaching letter, and that any error in jury instructions was harmless.
• United States v. Armand Gravely
  840 F.2d 1156· 4th Cir.· 1988-02-29 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for Sherman Act violations and obstruction of justice was proper, and that the trial court did not err in its rulings or conduct.
• Kowalski v. Gagne
  914 F.2d 299· 1st Cir.· 1990-09-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a prior murder conviction can collaterally estop a defendant from contesting liability under the wrongful death statute and the applicability of an intentional act exclusion in an insurance policy. The court also affirmed the admission of the conviction as evi
• Ware v. United States
  971 F. Supp. 1442· M.D. Fla.· 1997-07-21 ·cited 5×
  The court found in favor of the Government, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove malicious continuation of prosecution.
• Mutuelles Unies v. Kroll & Linstrom
  957 F.2d 707· 9th Cir.· 1992-02-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction was proper, jury instructions were appropriate, and the admission of expert testimony was not an abuse of discretion, affirming the jury verdict and pre-judgment interest award.
• United States v. Fidel Barragan Vargas
  933 F.2d 701· 9th Cir.· 1991-03-08 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court's procedure for presenting informant testimony violated the defendants' Sixth Amendment confrontation rights and that the confrontation clause violations were not harmless error.
• Nuvasive, Inc. v. Absolute Med., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-20
  The Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's rulings, adopted the Report and Recommendation, and granted Plaintiff's motion for damages, awarding $19,361,057.00.
• Keefer v. 3m Co.
  N.D. Fla.· 2021-03-26
  The court held that deposition testimony from a prior related litigation is admissible in the current litigation, overruling defendants' hearsay objections.
• United States v. Dent
  984 F.2d 1453· 7th Cir.· 1993-01-26
  The court held that grand jury testimony, even if trustworthy, cannot be admitted under the residual hearsay exception (Rule 804(b)(5)) if it is specifically covered by another exception (Rule 804(b)(1)) and fails to meet that exception's requirements.
• Shine v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.
  979 F.2d 93· 7th Cir.· 1992-10-28
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in barring untimely product identification disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and properly granted summary judgment.
• O'Banion v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. & the Celotex Corp.
  968 F.2d 1011· 10th Cir.· 1992-06-30
  The court held that the exclusion of cancer evidence was proper without a showing of reasonable medical probability, and while admitting former testimony without a finding of unavailability was an abuse of discretion, it was not prejudicial. The state of the art jury instruction
• United States v. Collin Taplin, Jr.
  954 F.2d 1256· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-29
  The court held that the defendant had a meaningful opportunity and motive to cross-examine the witness whose prior testimony was admitted, and therefore, admitting the testimony did not violate the Sixth Amendment.