Offer Of Proof

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

• United States v. Triplett
  922 F.2d 1174· 5th Cir.· 1991-01-18 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for arson and for being an accessory after the fact, and that the district court did not err in admitting certain statements or excluding other testimony.
• United States v. WYK
  840 F.2d 494· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-19 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting co-conspirator statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) because sufficient independent evidence established the conspiracy and the defendant's participation.
• McDONALD v. Fed. Labs., Inc.
  724 F.2d 243· 1st Cir.· 1984-01-03 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was not grossly excessive and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a remittitur or a new trial.
• United States v. Gresham
  585 F.2d 103· 5th Cir.· 1978-11-27 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a conviction for interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle cannot be sustained solely on the defendant's confession without independent evidence proving the corpus delicti (that the vehicle was stolen).
• Mills v. Richard Warren Levy, M.D.
  537 F.2d 1331· 5th Cir.· 1976-09-02 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove essential elements of a medical malpractice claim under Louisiana law and that the trial court did not err in excluding certain evidence.
• United States v. Wells
  525 F.2d 974· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-12 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the appellants' allegations of error were without merit and their convictions for receiving and disposing of stolen vehicles were affirmed.
• Taylor v. United States
  388 F.2d 786· 9th Cir.· 1967-12-19 ·cited 32×
  The court held that refusing to allow a witness to testify after violating a sequestration order, absent evidence of the litigant's complicity in the violation, constitutes an abuse of discretion.
• Gen. Eng'g, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  341 F.2d 367· 9th Cir.· 1965-02-08 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board improperly revoked subpoenas based solely on its internal regulation requiring consent, as this regulation was invalidly applied and did not constitute a recognized privilege.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Dewey Portland Cement Co.
  336 F.2d 117· 10th Cir.· 1964-09-02 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board did not err in including certain 'disputed' employees in the bargaining unit and that the employer was not denied due process by the Board's rejection of subsequently offered evidence.
• Evans v. United States
  326 F.2d 827· 8th Cir.· 1964-01-30 ·cited 32×
  Jury verdicts within the range of valuation testimony are conclusive and will not be disturbed as inadequate, and evidence of prior private sales by a witness is inadmissible without a proper foundation.
• Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Brei
  311 F.2d 463· 2d Cir.· 1962-11-20 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the judgment, but the concurring judge would not rule on the merits of excluding the decedent's statement due to a failure to preserve the issue for appeal.
• United States v. Nunez
  668 F.2d 1116· 10th Cir.· 1981-08-31 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in allowing a witness to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege on a collateral matter, in refusing to grant a mistrial based on a witness's mention of protective custody, or in refusing to dismiss the indictment based on grand jury p
• United States v. Pinc
  452 F.2d 507· 5th Cir.· 1971-12-09 ·cited 30×
  A defendant is denied effective assistance of counsel when the trial court requires counsel to represent co-defendants with conflicting interests and refuses to allow counsel to withdraw, thereby preventing counsel from effectively cross-examining witnesses or calling defense wit
• Wheeler v. United States
  351 F.2d 946· 1st Cir.· 1965-10-26 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court erred in preventing cross-examination regarding a key government witness's potential financial stake in the conviction.
• Jones v. Counselor Hamelman
  869 F.2d 1023· 7th Cir.· 1989-02-22 ·cited 29×
  The magistrate did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion to amend the complaint, excluding certain testimony, or denying the inmate's presence at trial, and the factual findings were not clearly erroneous.
• Parisie v. J.W. Greer
  705 F.2d 882· 7th Cir.· 1983-03-28 ·cited 29×
  The en banc court affirmed the district court's denial of the habeas corpus petition, vacating the prior panel decision, due to an equally divided court on the merits and a majority finding no jurisdiction or affirming the lower court.
• McD. v. State
  422 So. 2d 336· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-11-09 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in restricting cross-examination regarding an officer's disciplinary investigations because no offer of proof was made to establish relevancy.
• United States v. Leisure
  844 F.2d 1347· 8th Cir.· 1988-04-25 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the convictions of Anthony Leisure, Charles Loewe, David Leisure, and Paul Leisure, but reversed and remanded Wougamon's convictions on Counts I and IV.
• Easley v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
  758 F.2d 251· 8th Cir.· 1985-03-22 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the exclusion of expert testimony was harmless error, but the dissenting judge disagreed.
• United States ex rel. Johnny Veal v. DeROBERTIS
  693 F.2d 642· 7th Cir.· 1982-11-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a hearing should not be held to determine if the petitioner can show cause and prejudice for failing to make an adequate offer of proof.
• Andrews v. Olin Mathieson Chem. Corp.
  334 F.2d 422· 8th Cir.· 1964-07-23 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its procedural rulings, jury instructions, or evidentiary exclusions, affirming the jury's verdict.
• United States v. Pavelski
  789 F.2d 485· 7th Cir.· 1986-04-21 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the admission of evidence obtained from the appellants' car was harmless error, and the denial of John Rudolph's motion for severance was not an abuse of discretion.
• Morrison v. Murray Biscuit Co.
  797 F.2d 1430· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-31 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiff forfeited his right to a trial by inaction and that the termination did not violate antitrust laws because there was no evidence of a price-fixing conspiracy.
• In re Kitchen
  706 F.2d 1266· 2d Cir.· 1983-04-27 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court erred by not allowing the defendant to be heard and make an offer of proof before adjudging him in contempt.
• United States v. Collins
  690 F.2d 431· 5th Cir.· 1982-10-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings of sanity and premeditation, and that the trial court did not err in refusing a manslaughter instruction or excluding certain testimony.
• United States v. Wicoff
  187 F.2d 886· 7th Cir.· 1951-03-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding the defendant's intent and the cumulative effect of erroneous jury instructions and evidentiary rulings prejudiced the defendant's substantial rights, requiring reversal.
• ST. JOE Paper Co. v. United States
  155 F.2d 93· 5th Cir.· 1946-04-18 ·cited 26×
• United States v. Lopez
  944 F.2d 33· 1st Cir.· 1991-09-11 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not err in rejecting a plea agreement, refusing to recuse, limiting cross-examination, denying acquittal motions, or refusing a new trial, and that the sentencing decision was not reviewable.
• Earle v. Benoit
  850 F.2d 836· 1st Cir.· 1988-06-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not err in excluding evidence of town officers' statements due to lack of proven conspiracy, but erred in directing a verdict on the civil rights conspiracy claim, though this error was harmless.
• United States ex rel. v. J.W. Fairman
  707 F.2d 936· 7th Cir.· 1983-05-09 ·cited 24×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus, holding that the petitioner failed to exhaust his state remedies by not raising his Sixth Amendment claim in state court, and alternatively, that any error in excluding the witness's prior inconsistent statement was harmless.
• United Ins. Co. OF Am. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  304 F.2d 86· 7th Cir.· 1962-06-12 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the debit agents are independent contractors, not employees, because the company does not control the manner and means by which they conduct their business.
• Int'l Merger & Acquisition Consultants, Inc. v. Armac Enters., Inc.
  531 F.2d 821· 7th Cir.· 1976-03-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that alleged trial errors did not affect substantial rights, the jury verdict was supported by evidence, and the award of interest was justified, thus affirming the judgment.
• United States v. Russo
  527 F.2d 1051· 10th Cir.· 1975-12-29 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the wiretap applications and orders were sufficient because the government did not have probable cause to believe Russo was committing the offense or would use the target phones at the time of the initial wiretap authorization. Even if there were errors, they
• George Steinberg & SON, Inc. v. Butz
  491 F.2d 988· 2d Cir.· 1974-02-11 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Director of the Fruit and Vegetable Division had authority to file the administrative complaint, the APA's 'second chance' provision does not apply to license application denials based on past violations, and the due process rights of a stockholder are not
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Miami Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
  403 F.2d 994· 5th Cir.· 1968-11-26 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the employer was not denied a full and fair hearing despite the denial of certain discovery requests and the refusal to reopen the hearing, as the employer had sufficient opportunity to present its case.
• Russell-Newman MFG. Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  370 F.2d 980· 5th Cir.· 1966-12-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Board denied the company due process by failing to provide adequate notice and a fair hearing on new, substantial allegations.
• Thompson v. Lillehei
  273 F.2d 376· 8th Cir.· 1959-12-28 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence of actual negligence or vicarious liability to create a jury issue, and that no prejudicial errors were made in evidentiary rulings.
• Hunt v. United States
  231 F.2d 784· 8th Cir.· 1956-04-09 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the prosecutor's remarks were not improper comments on the defendant's failure to testify, and that the exclusion of the State Highway Patrol records was not error because no adequate offer of proof was made and no prejudice was shown.
• Ruud v. Am. Packing & Provision Co.
  177 F.2d 538· 9th Cir.· 1949-10-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court's findings were supported by substantial competent evidence and that no prejudicial error occurred, affirming the judgment.
• United States v. Perkins
  937 F.2d 1397· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-01 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, and while an instruction on change of appearance was improper, it constituted harmless error. Therefore, the conviction is affirmed.
• United States v. Alden
  476 F.2d 378· 7th Cir.· 1973-03-30 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by improperly excluding testimony from psychiatric and lay witnesses regarding the defendant's mental state.
• McRAE v. State
  88 So. 3d 384· Fla. 2d DCA· 2012-05-16 ·cited 20×
  Robert McRae appeals the revocation of his probation, challenging the trial court's decision to revoke his probation based on curfew and alcohol consumption violations that were not alleged in the original violation of probation affidavit. The court reversed, holding that revokin
• Almonte v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co.
  787 F.2d 763· 1st Cir.· 1986-04-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the plaintiff forfeited her right to object to jury instructions due to procedural failures and that the admission of certain testimony was harmless error.
• Socialist Workers Party v. Ill. State Bd. OF Elections
  566 F.2d 586· 7th Cir.· 1977-12-09 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the permanent injunction against enforcing certain signature requirements for new political parties and independent candidates, finding it based on a proper equal protection analysis. The court dismissed the appeal of a subsequent order setting signature requir
• Braunstein v. Mass. Bank & Tr. Co.
  443 F.2d 1281· 1st Cir.· 1971-06-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the bankruptcy schedules and an interim financial report were admissible to prove insolvency and that the jury's valuation of the transferred property was supported by the evidence.
• Ortman v. Stanray Corp.
  437 F.2d 231· 7th Cir.· 1971-01-14 ·cited 20×
  The court clarified its prior opinion, stating that certain issues regarding jurisdiction and contract payments were not prejudged and remain open for determination on remand.
• Wisconsin Barge Line v. Coastal Marine Transp., Inc.
  414 F.2d 872· 5th Cir.· 1969-07-23 ·cited 20×
  The court held that cancellation of an insurance policy was ineffective because the insurer failed to provide written notice to the named assured as required by statute, and that appellate courts will not consider issues not properly presented to the trial court.
• Fowler v. Crown-Zellerbach Corp.
  163 F.2d 773· 9th Cir.· 1947-10-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the appellants could not complain of the pretrial order limiting issues because they did not object to it below, and their offer of proof regarding damages from a sewage plant was insufficient.
• Covington v. Clemmons
  61 Fla. 151· Fla.· 1911-01-01 ·cited 20×
  A Florida replevin action where the plaintiff recovered possession of oxen and a log cart from the defendant. The defendant appealed on seven assignments of error, all of which the court found insufficient, affirming the judgment for the plaintiff.
• United States v. Merrival
  600 F.2d 717· 8th Cir.· 1979-06-28 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for mistrial, prohibiting inquiry into the victim's sexual history, refusing a specific cautionary instruction, or delaying sentencing, and therefore affirmed the conviction.