Harmful Error Standard

18 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Devine v. White
  697 F.2d 421· D.C. Cir.· 1983-01-07 ·cited 81×
  The Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) must file petitions for judicial review of arbitrator decisions within 30 days of notice, and is not required to seek reconsideration first. Judicial review of such decisions is discretionary and limited to exceptional case
• Katos v. Robert B. Cushing, D.D.S. & Robert B. Cushing, D.D.S., P.A.
  601 So. 2d 612· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-06-23 ·cited 47×
  The court affirmed a dental malpractice judgment, finding no harmful error in evidentiary rulings because excluded evidence was cumulative and admitted testimony was not prejudicial, and the jury verdict was supported by competent evidence.
• Devine v. R.A. Sutermeister
  724 F.2d 1558· Fed. Cir.· 1983-12-14 ·cited 26×
  An arbitrator's award mitigating an employee's removal for falsification to a suspension is valid, even if the appointment was obtained through misrepresentation, and the arbitrator is not strictly bound by MSPB precedents.
• Williams v. State
  407 So. 2d 223· Fla. 2d DCA· 1981-10-07 ·cited 24×
  A trial court commits harmful error by sentencing a juvenile to life imprisonment for attempted first degree murder without complying with juvenile sentencing statutes and without applying proper statutory maximums, and sentences must be reversed and remanded for resentencing in
• Devine v. Nutt
  718 F.2d 1048· Fed. Cir.· 1983-09-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that arbitrators must consider the 'harmful error' standard for individual grievant prejudice but can also enforce union rights violated by procedural errors, even if not personally prejudicial to the grievant. However, arbitral awards cannot conflict with external
• Griffith v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth.
  842 F.2d 487· D.C. Cir.· 1988-03-25 ·cited 13×
  Federal civil service employees do not have a property interest in annual within-grade pay increases protected by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, and judicial review of FLRA decisions on arbitral awards is generally precluded by statute.
• Dep't of the Treas. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth.
  873 F.2d 1467· D.C. Cir.· 1989-05-02 ·cited 8×
  Federal employees in the excepted service who lack a statutory right to appeal adverse personnel actions cannot compel an agency to bargain over a grievance arbitration procedure that permits challenges to those actions.
• Lavender v. State
  650 So. 2d 1137· Fla. 5th DCA· 1995-03-10 ·cited 6×
• Harp v. Dep't OF the Army
  791 F.2d 161· Fed. Cir.· 1986-05-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the unavailability of a hearing transcript is not automatically harmful error and that the record was sufficient for review.
• Monroe v. Dep't OF the Treas.
  770 F.2d 1044· Fed. Cir.· 1985-08-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner was not denied his right to a properly conducted oral response hearing and that alleged ex parte contacts were not harmful error.
• Gibson v. Metro. Life INS. Co.
  381 So. 2d 376· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-03-27 ·cited 2×
• USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. McDERMOTT
  929 So. 2d 1114· Fla. 2d DCA· 2006-05-19
  The concurring opinion agrees with the majority's analysis but disagrees with the conclusion that the improper closing arguments were not harmful, citing the size of the verdict as evidence of harmfulness.
• Dunsizer v. State
  746 So. 2d 1093· Fla. 2d DCA· 1999-02-26
• Linda J. Darnell (Rose) v. Dep't of Transp.
  807 F.2d 943· Fed. Cir.· 1986-11-26
  The denial of a pretermination hearing, even if considered harmless error by the majority, violated petitioners' due process rights.
• Devine v. White
  711 F.2d 1082· D.C. Cir.· 1983-07-12
  The court affirmed the arbitrator's decision setting aside the disciplinary sanction, despite the poor quality of the arbitrator's opinion.
• Washington v. Alberta Cooper
  416 So. 2d 1265· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-07-21
• Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Cromartie
  138 Fla. 483· Fla.· 1939-06-06
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment for an insured whose home and household effects were destroyed by fire, finding that while some errors occurred, they were not prejudicial enough to warrant a new trial.