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. E. Mass. St. Ry. Co.
  235 F.2d 700· 1st Cir.· 1956-07-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while the Board must present evidence of a union's compliance with filing requirements when challenged, employers cannot litigate the falsity of those filings; the Board's unit determination was not an abuse of discretion.
• Walsh v. Bekins van Lines Co.
  217 F.2d 388· 8th Cir.· 1954-12-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court's exclusion of a witness's explanation of deposition statements was not grounds for reversal because no offer of proof was made and the alleged inconsistencies did not affect substantial rights.
• Kelly v. State
  55 Fla. 51· Fla.· 1908-01-01 ·cited 12×
  Jack Kelly was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, Kelly challenged the trial court's exclusion of evidence regarding the conduct of the Register brothers and the denial of his motion for a new trial, but the Florida Supreme Court affir
• United States v. Gregorio de Jesus Mares
  940 F.2d 455· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-29 ·cited 11×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions for conspiracy and possession, and that the prosecutor's and judge's actions did not violate the defendants' rights.
• FOX v. Dannenberg
  906 F.2d 1253· 8th Cir.· 1990-06-28 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court committed reversible errors by excluding expert testimony on the identity of the driver and by giving an improper jury instruction regarding an inference of who was driving. The court also held that the jury should have been instructed on re
• Haas v. Abrahamson
  910 F.2d 384· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-06 ·cited 10×
  The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the habeas petition, holding that Wisconsin's rule barring psychiatric opinion testimony on the issue of a defendant's capacity to form specific intent to kill is not unconstitutional.
• Jones v. Berry
  880 F.2d 670· 2d Cir.· 1989-07-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that even if the trial court erred in limiting cross-examination, the error was harmless because the defendant failed to make an offer of proof regarding the relevance of the excluded questions and his trial counsel's actions obscured the intended purpose of the in
• Eckert v. Aliquippa & S. R.R. Co.
  828 F.2d 183· 3d Cir.· 1987-09-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred by refusing to submit claims based on violations of the Safety Appliance Acts (SAA) and related regulations to the jury, as such violations can prevent the reduction of damages due to contributory negligence.
• James v. Bell Helicopter Co.
  715 F.2d 166· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that damages solely to the product itself are not recoverable in a products liability action under Texas law, but may be recoverable under Illinois law if the damage constitutes 'physical damage' rather than economic loss. The court also held that the appellant fai
• United States v. Patrick
  532 F.2d 142· 9th Cir.· 1976-03-05 ·cited 10×
  The United States cannot appeal a judgment of acquittal entered after jeopardy has attached, as such an appeal would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
• United States v. Berzinski
  529 F.2d 590· 8th Cir.· 1976-02-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of willful intent to evade taxes, the jury instructions on intent were proper, and the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination.
• Ala. Power Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n
  511 F.2d 383· D.C. Cir.· 1974-11-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Commission's dismissal of the utilities' petition to amend its fuel purchase data disclosure regulation was not warranted on jurisdictional grounds, but affirmed the dismissal on the merits due to the utilities' failure to provide sufficient evidence of an
• United States v. Jalbert
  504 F.2d 892· 1st Cir.· 1974-10-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant's alcoholism did not preclude criminal intent and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or in admitting summary charts.
• Hutter N. Tr. v. Door Cnty. Chamber OF Commerce
  467 F.2d 1075· 7th Cir.· 1972-09-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that numerous erroneous evidentiary rulings, particularly the failure to state grounds for objections sustained against a pro se plaintiff, constituted prejudicial error denying a fair trial.
• The Diversey Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  325 F.2d 489· 7th Cir.· 1963-12-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Diversey failed to demonstrate the Regional Director acted arbitrarily or capriciously in denying a hearing, thus upholding the Board's order.
• Dulles v. Quan Yoke Fong
  237 F.2d 496· 9th Cir.· 1956-10-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial judge's denial of a reasonable opportunity to present a defense compelled dissent.
• Dauksewicz v. United States
  194 F.2d 52· 1st Cir.· 1951-12-19 ·cited 10×
  A landlord cannot unilaterally increase rent above the established maximum and then defend an overcharge claim by offering proof of facts that would have justified an increase had they applied for it administratively.
• Davis v. R.K.O. Radio Pictures, Inc.
  191 F.2d 901· 8th Cir.· 1951-10-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding testimony regarding the producer's statements without an offer of proof, nor in its jury instruction on reasonable interpretation of a film character.
• Zurich v. Wehr
  163 F.2d 791· 3d Cir.· 1947-09-22 ·cited 10×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the judgment because the trial court did not commit substantial error regarding the exclusion of Dr. Bartel's testimony or the explanation of Dr. Wilson's absence.
• Whittaker Corp. & Dynasciences Corp. v. Execuair Corp.
  736 F.2d 1341· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-06 ·cited 9×
  The court held that excluding evidence discovered after the discovery cutoff and evidence of pre-complaint acts of palming off was improper, requiring reversal and remand for further proceedings.
• Lane v. United States
  142 F.2d 249· 9th Cir.· 1944-04-08 ·cited 9×
  The court held that it was not error to reject the appellant's entire offer of proof, even if parts were admissible, because the inadmissible portions were not separated.
• Nat'l Mar. Union OF Am., AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  867 F.2d 767· 2d Cir.· 1989-02-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the union failed to meet its burden of proving that home visits were an unreasonable alternative means of communication, and therefore, the company did not violate the NLRA by denying union organizers access to its boats.
• Auckland Semper and Eldra Semper v. Raymundo Santos & Everett Invs., Inc.
  845 F.2d 1233· 3d Cir.· 1988-05-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial for inadequate damages, nor in excluding a witness not timely disclosed, as the jury's award was not unconscionable and the exclusion was justified by discovery violations.
• The Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Gulf Ins. Co.
  837 F.2d 767· 7th Cir.· 1988-01-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the plaintiff's motion to reopen the case, as the plaintiff had a realistic opportunity to present evidence of adequate tender during the initial trial and failed to do so.
• United States ex rel. Melvin Haywood v. O'Leary
  827 F.2d 52· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the witness's in-court identification was not unduly suggestive and was sufficiently reliable, and that the refusal to allow cross-examination on co-defendants' dispositions did not deny a fair trial.
• Johnson v. C.F. Ashby, M.D.
  808 F.2d 676· 8th Cir.· 1987-01-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff waived his challenge to the trial court's time limitations by failing to make a timely objection and offer of proof.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers Local Union # 46, Affiliated With the Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO
  793 F.2d 1026· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the NLRA by fining Witty, a representative of PAC, because the Union's offer to reduce the fine conditioned on Witty signing a contract demonstrated an intent to represent PAC's employees.
• United States v. Peters
  687 F.2d 1295· 10th Cir.· 1982-06-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in treating defendants' refusal to submit to fingerprinting during trial as a waiver of identification and in quashing subpoenas without a sworn offer of proof when defendants failed to comply with pre-trial orders.
• Gault v. Garrison
  569 F.2d 993· 7th Cir.· 1977-12-20 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate an infringement of her constitutional equal protection rights based on age discrimination in employment.
• Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs, Local NO. 18, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  496 F.2d 1308· 6th Cir.· 1974-05-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Board's order could not be justified because the administrative judge prevented the union from presenting evidence of its reasons for demoting Murphy.
• United States v. Wyler
  487 F.2d 170· 2d Cir.· 1973-11-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for severance and in failing to subpoena material witnesses, violating his due process and Sixth Amendment rights.
• Marrone v. United States
  355 F.2d 238· 2d Cir.· 1966-01-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's appeal was barred by her failure to make an offer of proof regarding the significance of the excluded testimony, and also affirmed because the plaintiff failed to prove causation.
• Fiano v. United States
  271 F.2d 883· 9th Cir.· 1959-10-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence supported the guilty verdict and affirmed the conviction.
• Ruud v. United States
  256 F.2d 460· 9th Cir.· 1958-03-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the exclusion of farmer witnesses' testimony regarding land value was prejudicial error.
• Benjamin S. Mesirow under Tr. Agreement known as Tr. No. 140 in behalf of all beneficiaries of his Tr. v. Duggan
  240 F.2d 751· 8th Cir.· 1957-02-04 ·cited 8×
  A bankruptcy trustee who obtains both the real estate and the purchase money from a void judicial sale, where the purchaser acted in good faith without actual knowledge of the sale's invalidity, cannot in conscience retain both and must grant the purchaser an equitable lien.
• Maguire v. Fed. Crop Ins. Corp.
  181 F.2d 320· 5th Cir.· 1950-04-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the exclusion of plaintiff's rebuttal evidence regarding differences between her land and an adjoining farm was prejudicial error requiring reversal.
• United States v. Katz
  173 F.2d 116· 3d Cir.· 1949-02-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial judge's conduct did not deny the appellant a fair trial, and the introduction of certain evidence was permissible.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Consol. Mortg. & Fin. Corp.
  805 F.2d 14· 1st Cir.· 1986-11-10 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the three-year statute of limitations applies to commercial loans and that Consolidated's acknowledgments of debt prevented the statute from barring the FDIC's claims. However, Suro's liability as a guarantor requires further factual development.
• United States v. Rendahl
  746 F.2d 553· 9th Cir.· 1984-11-01 ·cited 7×
  The court held that respondents' Fifth Amendment privilege claims were not barred by res judicata and were properly raised in the contempt proceedings, as the privilege could not have been fully litigated at the earlier summons enforcement stage. The court also found that the dis
• Brantley v. Snapper Power Equipment
  665 So. 2d 241· Fla. 3d DCA· 1995-09-06 ·cited 6×
  In this strict products liability case, the court reversed a defense verdict and remanded for a new trial because the trial court improperly excluded pre-accident evidence of a known defective weld problem in riding mowers under Florida's subsequent remedial measures statute, whi
• Strapp v. State
  588 So. 2d 27· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-10-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's challenge to the aggravated battery conviction was not preserved for appellate review because the defense failed to make a clear offer of proof regarding the complaining witness's probationary status and motive to lie.
• United States v. Amerson-Bey
  898 F.2d 681· 8th Cir.· 1990-03-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in sustaining an objection during cross-examination and that the sentence enhancement did not violate due process as the constitutional objection was not raised below.
• Fernandez v. State
  555 So. 2d 437· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-01-16 ·cited 6×
  The appellate court affirmed the defendant's convictions for burglary, robbery, and kidnapping but remanded the case for resentencing because the trial court improperly applied sentencing guidelines by adding points for victim injury that were not supported by evidence.
• Janetka v. Dabe
  892 F.2d 187· 2d Cir.· 1989-12-15 ·cited 6×
  An acquittal on a resisting arrest charge constitutes a favorable termination for a malicious prosecution claim, even if the defendant was convicted of a related disorderly conduct charge arising from the same incident.
• Garner v. Frank J. Santoro in Bankr. of Seaguard Corp.
  865 F.2d 629· 5th Cir.· 1989-01-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court erred in precluding the government contractor defense and remanded for further proceedings, but affirmed the denial of motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict on other grounds.
• Lubin Quinones v. Pa. Gen. Ins. Co.
  804 F.2d 1167· 10th Cir.· 1986-11-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)'s 100-mile bulge provision extends personal jurisdiction to the extent of the bulge area, provided due process is satisfied, and that the collateral source rule does not apply when the plaintiff's insurer is also the defend
• Lovejoy v. Goodrich
  798 F.2d 1201· 8th Cir.· 1986-08-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding a prior arrest constituted prejudicial error, requiring a new trial against the defendant officer.
• Baton Rouge Marine Contractors, Inc. v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n & United States
  655 F.2d 1210· D.C. Cir.· 1981-05-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the FMC inadequately explained its conclusion that Cargill's charge was just and reasonable, departing from precedent without sufficient justification.
• Velsicol Chem. Corp. v. Monsanto Co.
  579 F.2d 1038· 7th Cir.· 1978-06-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in excluding the proffered testimony of two witnesses, requiring reversal and remand for a new trial.
• Yost v. A. O. Smith Corp.
  562 F.2d 592· 8th Cir.· 1977-10-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or in dismissing claims based on lack of instructions, and that any potential errors were harmless.