Offer Of Proof

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

• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Tenn. Packers, Inc.
  379 F.2d 172· 6th Cir.· 1967-06-21 ·cited 134×
  The court held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in setting aside the first election without a hearing, nor in its certification of the union following the second election, as its findings were supported by substantial evidence and it was bound by the parties' stipulati
• United States v. Elorance James
  510 F.2d 546· 5th Cir.· 1975-03-26 ·cited 115×
  The court held that a co-conspirator's statement was admissible hearsay and that the trial judge's conduct, while severe, did not prejudice the jury, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Cook
  608 F.2d 1175· 9th Cir.· 1979-06-29 ·cited 113×
  A defendant is entitled to appellate review of a denied Rule 609 motion without testifying, but must demonstrate prejudice from the ruling.
• United States v. Ryan
  455 F.2d 728· 9th Cir.· 1971-12-13 ·cited 95×
  The concurring judge believes the majority opinion improperly rules on matters not before the court and inappropriately criticizes the trial judge.
• United States v. Amabile
  395 F.2d 47· 7th Cir.· 1968-04-26 ·cited 94×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction for violating the Hobbs Act was supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in restricting cross-examination or denying disclosure of grand jury testimony.
• Skogen v. The DOW Chem. Co.
  375 F.2d 692· 8th Cir.· 1967-03-30 ·cited 94×
  The court held that while the trial court may have erred in limiting cross-examination under Rule 43(b), such error was harmless, and other alleged trial errors did not warrant a new trial.
• United States v. Liefer
  778 F.2d 1236· 7th Cir.· 1985-12-04 ·cited 90×
  The court held that evidence of prior bad acts is admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) to prove specific intent, an essential element of the crime, even if the defendant denies committing the act itself. The court also held that prosecutorial misconduct and the denial of a lesser
• United States v. Kovel
  296 F.2d 918· 2d Cir.· 1961-12-05 ·cited 90×
  The attorney-client privilege can extend to a non-lawyer employee of a law firm if their role is integral to obtaining legal advice, but the record must support this necessity and confidentiality.
• Murray v. State
  3 So. 3d 1108· Fla.· 2009-01-30 ·cited 89×
  Gerald Murray was convicted of first-degree murder, burglary, and sexual battery in the 1990 death of Alice Vest. This was his fourth trial and third conviction on the same charges; the Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and death sentence after rejecting multiple appe
• Pacifico v. State
  642 So. 2d 1178· Fla. 1st DCA· 1994-09-29 ·cited 89×
  Joseph Pacifico was convicted of sexual battery after a jury trial. The Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the cumulative effect of prosecutorial misconduct deprived him of a fair trial, though the court also addressed evide
• Collins v. Wayne Corp.
  621 F.2d 777· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-18 ·cited 89×
  The court held that the district court erred in refusing to allow the plaintiffs to offer an expert's deposition as an admission of the defendant, but this error was harmless. The court also held that the district court did not err in allowing cross-examination of the plaintiffs'
• Coursen v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc.
  764 F.2d 1329· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-03 ·cited 88×
  The court held that the district court did not err in excluding evidence of pregnancy rates and fraudulent reporting, nor in striking punitive damages prayers. However, the court found error in the jury instruction regarding unavoidable danger and the admission of sexual history
• United States v. Winkle
  587 F.2d 705· 5th Cir.· 1979-01-11 ·cited 83×
  The court held that the defendant's arguments regarding the indictment, trial conduct, and jury impropriety were without merit or constituted harmless error, thus affirming his convictions.
• Hoffman v. Palmer
  129 F.2d 976· 2d Cir.· 1942-06-23 ·cited 83×
  The court held that the restrictive interpretation of 28 U.S.C.A. § 695, excluding a stenographic report based on a presumed motive to misrepresent, was contrary to the statute's intent and plain language.
• Goldstein v. Kelleher
  728 F.2d 32· 1st Cir.· 1984-02-29 ·cited 82×
  The court held that a consensual trial before a magistrate under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3) is constitutional, and that while the magistrate erred in allocating peremptory challenges, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate prejudice. The court also affirmed the directed verdict on the in
• Drummond v. United States
  350 F.2d 983· 8th Cir.· 1965-09-29 ·cited 82×
  The court held that warrantless searches of the defendant's automobile, house, and garage were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and that the trial court did not err in admitting the seized evidence, nor in its handling of a potentially prejudicial cross-examination question
• Victor and Marie Perkins v. Volkswagen OF Am., Inc.
  596 F.2d 681· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-08 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding expert testimony or evidence, and any error in ruling on a hostile witness was not prejudicial, thus affirming the directed verdict.
• Liner v. J. B. Talley & Co., Inc.
  618 F.2d 327· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-02 ·cited 67×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict of no negligence and the award of maintenance and cure, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings.
• Cornwell Quality Tools Co. v. C. T. S. Co., Inc.
  446 F.2d 825· 9th Cir.· 1971-06-24 ·cited 67×
  The court held that the district court erred in directing verdicts on the contract and most antitrust claims, as sufficient evidence existed to present these issues to a jury, but affirmed the directed verdict on one antitrust claim and the taxation of costs.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. ST. Francis Hosp. OF Lynwood
  601 F.2d 404· 9th Cir.· 1979-07-18 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the Board's per se policy of creating separate bargaining units for registered nurses is inconsistent with congressional intent to prevent undue proliferation of units in the healthcare industry.
• Harris v. Smith
  372 F.2d 806· 8th Cir.· 1967-01-11 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the trial court erred in admitting hypothetical questions based on another expert's opinion and in excluding the expert testimony of a qualified general practitioner solely because he was not a specialist in the specific field.
• Angrand v. KEY
  657 So. 2d 1146· Fla.· 1995-06-22 ·cited 58×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between district courts regarding the admissibility of expert testimony on grief and bereavement in wrongful death cases. The Court held that while trial courts have broad discretion to admit such expert testimony, it must genuinely a
• United States v. Schaefer
  299 F.2d 625· 7th Cir.· 1962-02-14 ·cited 58×
  The court held that a fraudulent scheme taints the entire enterprise, and the exclusion of a witness who violated a sequestration order is within the trial court's discretion, requiring a showing of gross abuse and prejudice to be overturned.
• Bismark Diaz & Bis D. Corp. v. Osmel R. Rodriguez
  384 So. 2d 906· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-06-03 ·cited 56×
  Defendants appealed from a jury verdict, claiming the trial court erred by preventing them from presenting witness testimony. The appellate court affirmed, holding that defendants failed to preserve the issue for appeal because they withdrew the witness without informing the cour
• Coppedge v. United States
  311 F.2d 128· D.C. Cir.· 1962-11-15 ·cited 54×
  The court held that an indictment is valid if supported by sufficient competent evidence, even if some perjured or incompetent testimony was presented to the grand jury, and that former trial testimony is admissible if the witness is unavailable.
• United States v. Gale Nace and Nathan J. Warren, Sr.
  561 F.2d 763· 9th Cir.· 1977-09-21 ·cited 53×
  The conviction should be reversed because the prosecution injected grossly inflammatory and prejudicial evidence near the end of the trial.
• United States v. Katsougrakis
  715 F.2d 769· 2d Cir.· 1983-08-12 ·cited 52×
  Convictions under the Explosive Control Act are reversed because uncontained gasoline is not an 'explosive' as defined by the Act, but conspiracy and mail fraud convictions are affirmed if supported by independent evidence.
• United States v. Walton
  411 F.2d 283· 9th Cir.· 1969-01-30 ·cited 52×
  The court, reconsidering its prior decision, should grant rehearing and reverse the conviction due to the trial court's erroneous exclusion of the defendant's testimony regarding entrapment conversations.
• Boykin v. State
  40 Fla. 484· Fla.· 1898-06-01 ·cited 52×
  Three men were convicted of criminal trespass for cutting cedar timber on land they claimed to own under a tax deed. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial court erred in its jury instructions by failing to properly allow the defendants
• Gideon v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
  761 F.2d 1129· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-03 ·cited 51×
  The court held that expert testimony on future cancer risk is admissible if based on reasonable medical probability, and that evidence of exposure to products of bankrupt defendants is not material to the current trial's determination of liability.
• United States v. Brown
  501 F.2d 146· 9th Cir.· 1974-06-10 ·cited 50×
  The court held that a witness's statement used for impeachment, if it refreshes recollection, is subject to disclosure for cross-examination, even if not previously produced.
• Hawkins v. Mo. Pac. R. Co.
  188 F.2d 348· 8th Cir.· 1951-03-16 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or in refusing to incorporate affidavits regarding counsel's argument into the record, as no reversible error was demonstrated.
• United States v. Peters
  732 F.2d 1004· 1st Cir.· 1984-04-23 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the late disclosure of Brady material did not prejudice the defendants, and the exclusion of cross-examination regarding psychiatric history was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Dorrell
  758 F.2d 427· 9th Cir.· 1985-04-17 ·cited 46×
  The court's majority opinion fails to distinguish between the necessity defense and civil disobedience, and improperly suggests punishment validates a defendant's sincerity.
• United States v. Seward
  687 F.2d 1270· 10th Cir.· 1982-06-17 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the necessity defense because the defendants failed to make an adequate offer of proof demonstrating the required elements, and that the government had jurisdiction to prosecute trespass on federal proper
• Hidalgo Props., Inc. v. Wachovia Mortg. Co.
  617 F.2d 196· 10th Cir.· 1980-02-25 ·cited 45×
  The court held that a defendant cannot avoid liability for breach of contract by designating fees as non-refundable when the plaintiff seeks to recover expenses incurred in reliance on the contract. Furthermore, issues of waiver and excuse of performance due to repudiation are fo
• United States v. Oliver
  525 F.2d 731· 8th Cir.· 1975-10-31 ·cited 44×
• Jones v. City OF Alton
  757 F.2d 878· 7th Cir.· 1985-03-12 ·cited 42×
  A state court judgment does not bar a federal civil rights action if the plaintiff was prevented from litigating the discrimination issue in state proceedings.
• United States v. Brown
  634 F.2d 819· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-19 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the district court's upholding of the marital privilege did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation or Fifth Amendment due process rights, as the excluded testimony was cumulative and the defendant had ample alternative means to impe
• Rockwell Mfg. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  330 F.2d 795· 7th Cir.· 1964-03-31 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the Board's failure to afford the company a hearing on its objections to the election constituted a denial of due process.
• Peterman v. Indian Motorcycle Co.
  216 F.2d 289· 1st Cir.· 1954-10-28 ·cited 40×
  The court held that a notice of appeal from a final judgment brings up for review errors in the judgment, and a separate appeal from an order denying a post-judgment motion for a new trial is only necessary if the motion presents new matters not before the court at judgment.
• United States v. Hoffman
  806 F.2d 703· 7th Cir.· 1986-11-12 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the admission of evidence regarding the defendant's religious affiliation and political views was irrelevant and highly prejudicial, and that the letter alone did not constitute a 'true threat' under 18 U.S.C. § 871(a).
• Int'l Union v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  231 F.2d 237· 7th Cir.· 1956-03-20 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the unfair labor practice complaint, finding that the extension of the union security contract to new employees was proper as an accretion to an existing unit.
• United States v. Cameron
  907 F.2d 1051· 11th Cir.· 1990-08-01 ·cited 36×
  The court held that a motion for hospitalization, filed before trial, did not constitute a sufficient offer of proof for an insanity defense when the exclusion of evidence was based on a procedural failure to provide adequate notice. The court also noted that the district court's
• Ellis v. City OF Chicago
  667 F.2d 606· 7th Cir.· 1981-12-15 ·cited 36×
  The court held that plaintiffs' failure to object to a jury instruction in the district court precludes appellate review, and that evidentiary rulings and the refusal to allow leading questions on direct examination did not constitute reversible error absent a showing of prejudic
• Bart McCall v. State
  55 Fla. 108· Fla.· 1908-01-01 ·cited 36×
  Bart McCall was convicted of murder in the third degree and sentenced to ten years imprisonment for killing his brother Ed. McCall appealed on writ of error, challenging the trial court's evidentiary rulings and jury instructions, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convic
• United States v. Puchi
  441 F.2d 697· 9th Cir.· 1971-05-03 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the admission of tape-recorded conversations made with the consent of one party did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, and that inconsistent jury verdicts are permissible.
• Beck v. Wings Field, Inc.
  122 F.2d 114· 3d Cir.· 1941-06-30 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to grant a mistrial after a witness made a highly prejudicial and incurable remark.
• United States v. Carroll Samara
  643 F.2d 701· 10th Cir.· 1981-03-04 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdicts for tax violations and that the statute of limitations did not bar prosecution based on amended returns.
• Maurizio D. Fortunato v. Ford Motor Co.
  464 F.2d 962· 2d Cir.· 1972-07-10 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court committed reversible error by excluding evidence relevant to Ford's defense and by permitting prejudicial summation by plaintiff's counsel, especially in a close case.