Offer Of Proof

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

• United States v. Jerril J. Krowen
  809 F.2d 144· 1st Cir.· 1987-01-14 ·cited 18×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict Krowen of mail fraud, and that the jury instructions and evidentiary rulings were not erroneous.
• United States v. McCONNELL
  749 F.2d 1441· 10th Cir.· 1984-12-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance motions and that the issue of threatened cross-examination was not preserved for appeal.
• In re AIR Crash Disaster AT John F. Kennedy Int'l Airport ON June 24
  635 F.2d 67· 2d Cir.· 1980-10-06 ·cited 18×
  The trial court did not err in excluding certain facts as stipulated, as the circumstances surrounding their admission and the parties' positions had changed due to the government's settlement.
• United States v. Lopez
  611 F.2d 44· 4th Cir.· 1979-11-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding a witness's psychiatric history and in allowing the late introduction of a stipulation into evidence.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Process & Pollution Control Co.
  588 F.2d 786· 10th Cir.· 1978-12-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding the employer's beliefs about union affiliation of previously hired employees was an error that might affect the outcome, and the admission of hearsay testimony was also an error.
• N. v. Maatschappij Voor Industriele Waarden
  590 F.2d 415· 2d Cir.· 1978-12-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the exclusion of an expert witness's testimony and the limitation of cross-examination did not constitute prejudicial error, and thus the appellants were not denied a fair trial.
• Singleton v. The Honorable Louis J. Lefkowitz
  583 F.2d 618· 2d Cir.· 1978-09-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion by denying a continuance for an absent witness when the defense failed to show the witness's testimony would be relevant, material, and favorable.
• Richardson v. McCLUNG
  559 F.2d 395· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
• United States v. Powers
  467 F.2d 1089· 7th Cir.· 1972-09-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to give effect to the Government's allegedly inconsistent positions in a prior trial, nor in excluding certain defense testimony, nor in its handling of a prosecutor's question about bar complaints.
• Kgmo Radio-Television, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
  336 F.2d 920· D.C. Cir.· 1964-05-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the FCC improperly denied a petition for reconsideration without notice of the required specificity for allegations of economic harm.
• Ferguson v. State
  474 So. 2d 208· Fla.· 1985-06-27 ·cited 17×
  John Erroll Ferguson appeals his death sentence following resentencing ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. The Court affirms the death sentence, finding no error in the trial court's refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing, its application of the cold, calculated, and premeditat
• Sanchez v. United States
  725 F.2d 29· 2d Cir.· 1984-01-05 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court applied too strict a standard in denying the motion to terminate civil contempt, requiring further consideration.
• United States v. DiMATTEO
  716 F.2d 1361· 11th Cir.· 1983-10-11 ·cited 17×
  The court held that admitting extrinsic evidence solely to attack a witness's credibility, in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b), was an error that was not harmless.
• PAU v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co.
  928 F.2d 880· 9th Cir.· 1991-03-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of a sign prohibiting rental bikes on the trail and in dismissing the express warranty claim, warranting reversal and remand for a new trial.
• United States v. Owens
  844 F.2d 701· 9th Cir.· 1988-04-19 ·cited 16×
  The court remanded the case for the district court to rule on a Rule 602 objection regarding witness personal knowledge, as the Supreme Court had reversed the prior decision on Confrontation Clause grounds.
• United States v. West
  828 F.2d 1468· 10th Cir.· 1987-09-09 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying a continuance to allow the defense to present a key witness, materially prejudicing the defendant.
• Adams v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
  783 F.2d 589· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that evidence of increased risk of cancer and resulting mental anguish is inadmissible without proof of a present, medically probable injury, and that abstract statistics are insufficient to establish such probability.
• United States v. Hilton Robinson
  687 F.2d 359· 11th Cir.· 1982-09-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish the statutory minimum value of the stolen goods and that the admission of evidence of other crimes and the judge's conduct did not constitute reversible error.
• Thomas v. Wyrick
  687 F.2d 235· 8th Cir.· 1982-08-20 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, holding that the petitioner's procedural failures, including the provisional nature of the trial court's ruling and the failure to make an offer of proof, precluded a constitutional review of the exclusion of character witnes
• ATR Wire & Cable Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  671 F.2d 188· 6th Cir.· 1982-02-16 ·cited 16×
  The court should enforce the Board's order because the company failed to raise substantial and material factual issues requiring an evidentiary hearing.
• Barnes v. Jones
  665 F.2d 427· 2d Cir.· 1981-11-23 ·cited 16×
  Appointed appellate counsel owes a duty to his client to pursue colorable claims on appeal, and failure to do so constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Pinto Trucking Serv., Inc. v. Motor Dispatch, Inc.
  649 F.2d 530· 7th Cir.· 1981-05-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that applying collateral estoppel to bind defendants to issues decided against other defendants in a prior trial violated due process because the defendants did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate those issues.
• United States v. Stoppelmann
  266 F.2d 13· 8th Cir.· 1959-04-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant's negligence in failing to properly police a maneuver area and exclude children from it proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries, and the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent.
• United States v. Lowrie
  246 F.2d 472· 4th Cir.· 1957-07-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that excluding evidence of comparable sales offered by government experts in condemnation cases was erroneous, both on hearsay and comparability grounds.
• Silberman v. United States
  131 F.2d 715· 1st Cir.· 1942-12-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while lessees have a right to compensation and to be heard on the value of their interest, the trial court did not err in denying them participation in the initial jury trial to determine the land's value, as their interest was adequately protected by the subs
• Dorall Daniel Marshall v. State
  68 So. 3d 374· Fla. 5th DCA· 2011-08-26 ·cited 15×
  A prior inconsistent statement is not hearsay when offered to impeach a witness's credibility, and when a witness cannot recall making such a statement, the fact that it was made may be proved by another witness. The trial court erred in precluding impeachment of the victim based
• In re Amendments TO THE Fla. Evidence Code-Section 90.104
  914 So. 2d 940· Fla.· 2005-10-20 ·cited 15×
  The Florida Supreme Court adopted an amendment to Florida Evidence Code section 90.104(1)(b) that eliminates the requirement for a trial objection to preserve an evidentiary issue for appeal when the trial judge has made a definitive ruling on admissibility. This procedural chang
• United States v. Williams
  791 F.2d 1383· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-17 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the defendant failed to make a sufficient offer of proof regarding his intent to resubmit to authorities, which is an essential element of the duress defense in an escape case.
• United States v. Komisaruk
  885 F.2d 490· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in precluding evidence of international law, necessity, or crime prevention as defenses to the charge of willfully damaging government property, nor in refusing a jury instruction on trespass as a lesser included offense.
• Major Burrus v. Young
  808 F.2d 578· 7th Cir.· 1986-12-17 ·cited 14×
  The exclusion of expert testimony regarding the sobering effects of trauma, even if admissible under state law, did not violate the defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial or due process.
• Davis v. Freels
  583 F.2d 337· 7th Cir.· 1978-08-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court erred in barring expert testimony regarding the angle of the shooting, which was crucial to determining the reasonableness of the officer's actions and the credibility of witness testimony.
• Meredith v. Hardy
  554 F.2d 764· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendants' motion to restrict evidence regarding punitive damages and in admitting certain other evidence.
• NEW Mexico Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
  454 F.2d 328· 10th Cir.· 1972-01-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the jury could reasonably find that neither the bookkeeper nor the president acted dishonestly, fraudulently, or criminally, and thus the bonding company was not liable under the fidelity bond.
• Cal. GAS Producers Ass'n v. Fed. Power Comm'n
  383 F.2d 645· 9th Cir.· 1967-09-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Federal Power Commission did not abuse its discretion in authorizing Pacific Gas Transmission Company to import additional natural gas, as its findings were supported by substantial evidence and consistent with the Natural Gas Act.
• McGRATH v. Chung Young
  188 F.2d 975· 9th Cir.· 1951-04-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence that would not have been sufficient or competent to overcome the prima facie case established by the appellee.
• Strong v. Mercantile Tr. Co., N.A.
  816 F.2d 429· 8th Cir.· 1987-04-17 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the exclusion of testimony regarding discussions at an EEOC factfinding conference was not reversible error, either because the offer of proof was insufficient or because the error was harmless.
• Waltzer v. Transidyne Gen. Corp.
  697 F.2d 130· 6th Cir.· 1983-01-03 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the trial court erred by prohibiting an attorney of record from testifying and by ruling that the defendant admitted the accuracy of stock summaries under Rule 36. The case is remanded for a new trial.
• AU BON Pain Corp. v. Artect, Inc.
  653 F.2d 61· 2d Cir.· 1981-06-22 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the claims against the individual defendants and in its conduct of the inquest, requiring reversal and remand.
• Young v. Rabideau
  821 F.2d 373· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding testimony about prison rules and in admitting limited cross-examination regarding the plaintiff's prior disciplinary record.
• Brooks v. Chrysler Corp.
  786 F.2d 1191· D.C. Cir.· 1986-03-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of prior occurrences under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, trial delay, and jury confusion.
• Curreri v. Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters
  722 F.2d 6· 1st Cir.· 1983-11-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the exclusion of testimony regarding union instructions on picket line conduct was reversible error, as it was relevant to the union's knowledge and ratification of violence.
• Sours v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  717 F.2d 1511· 6th Cir.· 1983-09-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on negligence, product defect, and lack of substantial modification, and that the exclusion of seat belt evidence was harmless error.
• Parisie v. Greer
  671 F.2d 1011· 7th Cir.· 1982-02-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the majority's disposition of the case without adequate exploration of premises and ramifications was improper.
• Freyda Saltzman v. Fullerton Metals Co.
  661 F.2d 647· 7th Cir.· 1981-10-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court's finding of voluntary termination was clearly erroneous, but the admission of late-disclosed evidence and curtailed cross-examination did not warrant a new trial on the Equal Pay Act claim.
• Feinstein v. Mass. Gen. Hosp.
  643 F.2d 880· 1st Cir.· 1981-03-10 ·cited 12×
  Federal courts sitting in diversity must apply Massachusetts' medical malpractice statute, including its tribunal screening and bond requirements, as they are substantive state law under the Rules of Decision Act and Erie doctrine.
• United States v. Sanchez
  483 F.2d 1052· 2d Cir.· 1973-08-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant was not deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and that his conviction was not tainted by unlawful electronic surveillance.
• Kauffmann v. United States
  414 F.2d 1022· 8th Cir.· 1969-08-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that convictions could be affirmed based on counts not affected by alleged illegal search and seizure, and that failure to call a witness was not prejudicial misconduct.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hood Corp. & Contractors' Equip. Supply Co.
  346 F.2d 1020· 9th Cir.· 1965-05-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that an alleged oral agreement regarding voter eligibility is insufficient to override a written consent election agreement that makes the Regional Director's determinations final and binding.
• United States v. Cording
  290 F.2d 392· 2d Cir.· 1961-05-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a second trial was not barred by double jeopardy after a mistrial due to a hung jury, and that the exclusion of certain evidence was not reversible error.
• Ladakis v. United States
  283 F.2d 141· 10th Cir.· 1960-10-07 ·cited 12×
  The appellate court held that the defendant waived his right to appeal the admission of evidence by failing to move for a mistrial after the evidence was stricken and the jury instructed to disregard it.