Offer Of Proof

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

• United States v. Pratt
  531 F.2d 395· 9th Cir.· 1976-01-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the prosecutor's display of a gun, though contrary to a prior order, did not constitute reversible misconduct given the defense's delayed objection and the judge's curative instruction. The court also found no reversible error in the exclusion of expert testim
• United States v. Fritts
  505 F.2d 168· 9th Cir.· 1974-09-19 ·cited 6×
  The court should have given a cautionary instruction regarding accomplice testimony, and its failure to do so constituted reversible error.
• Bernard v. Omaha Hotel, Inc.
  482 F.2d 1222· 8th Cir.· 1973-08-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in its rulings regarding jury instructions, evidence exclusion, or discovery.
• United States v. Smith
  464 F.2d 222· 8th Cir.· 1972-07-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of a witness's drug use when the defense failed to make an offer of proof demonstrating the witness was an habitual user whose faculties were impaired.
• United States v. Colonial Motor INN, Inc.
  440 F.2d 1227· 1st Cir.· 1971-03-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court erred in limiting cross-examination regarding a witness's potential motive to lie due to tax implications.
• Edmonds v. United States (Small Bus. Admin.
  354 F.2d 546· 8th Cir.· 1965-12-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Trustee's offer of proof was irrelevant to the SBA's reclamation petition and that the Trustee's arguments regarding the bankrupt corporation's legal existence were without merit under Minnesota law.
• Christensen v. Felton
  322 F.2d 323· 9th Cir.· 1963-07-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a party is not obligated to cross-examine or offer contradicting evidence when their opponent's witnesses testify under Rule 43(c) unless the court directs them to do so.
• Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n
  304 F.2d 29· 5th Cir.· 1962-05-16 ·cited 6×
  The Federal Power Commission has broad authority under the Federal Power Act to prescribe a system of accounts and determine the classification of expenditures, including political advertising, as necessary for the administration of the Act.
• Frisone v. United States
  270 F.2d 401· 9th Cir.· 1959-09-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a defendant cannot testify to his own mental illness and its effect on his memory, as this requires expert testimony.
• Norwood Lumber Corp. v. McKEAN
  153 F.2d 753· 3d Cir.· 1946-02-05 ·cited 6×
  A plaintiff in a diversity case need not prove damages equal to the jurisdictional amount to maintain federal jurisdiction, and the trial court erred in excluding evidence relevant to the plaintiff's damages for breach of contract.
• Taylor v. State
  701 So. 2d 610· Fla. 2d DCA· 1997-10-29 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding the landowner's claim for severance damages, as the proffered expert testimony was sufficient to invoke an exception to the general rule.
• LEE v. Rapid City Area Sch. Dist. NO. 51-4
  981 F.2d 316· 8th Cir.· 1992-12-03 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony about the substance of complaints against a teacher, as the offer of proof was too general and the excluded evidence was largely cumulative.
• Armour & Co. v. Nard
  463 F.2d 8· 8th Cir.· 1972-06-07 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding commissions, costs, or the exclusion of evidence concerning oral agreements, and that the jury's findings were supported by the record.
• Michael KEY, D.O. v. Angrand
  630 So. 2d 646· Fla. 3d DCA· 1994-01-11 ·cited 4×
  Dr. Key, a radiologist, appeals a medical malpractice verdict in a case where he failed to diagnose an interstitial ectopic pregnancy on ultrasound, resulting in the patient's death. The Third District reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that expert testimony regarding
• United States v. Begay
  937 F.2d 515· 10th Cir.· 1991-06-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the victim's prior sexual activity, violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• First Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. v. A.L. Hollingsworth, Jr.
  931 F.2d 1295· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in barring a defendant from testifying, requiring a new trial on the RICO claim against him. It also affirmed the dismissal of the wrongful attachment counterclaim due to speculative damages.
• Patrick v. The City OF Detroit
  906 F.2d 1108· 6th Cir.· 1990-06-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the district court erred in limiting cross-examination on the extent of injuries, this error was relevant only to damages, not liability, and thus a new trial is required solely on the amount of compensatory damages.
• United States v. Donsky
  825 F.2d 746· 3d Cir.· 1987-08-05 ·cited 4×
  A district court may dismiss a facially valid indictment after the government's opening statement only if the prosecution makes a clear and deliberate concession that must necessarily prevent a conviction, and only after the prosecution has had a full opportunity to correct any e
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. DEL REY Tortilleria, Inc.
  823 F.2d 1135· 7th Cir.· 1987-07-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the union organizer's conduct did not violate the National Labor Relations Act's prohibition against electioneering, and therefore the company's refusal to bargain was unlawful.
• United States v. Goodacre
  793 F.2d 1124· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant's offer of proof did not establish sufficient government responsibility for the alleged inducement to warrant jury instructions on entrapment.
• Tate v. Robbins & Myers, Inc.
  790 F.2d 10· 1st Cir.· 1986-05-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in excluding the 1980 Manual because the plaintiff failed to establish a sufficient foundation for its relevance to the continuing duty to warn claim and waived the argument that it was relevant to the original negligence claim.
• Dutton v. Brown
  788 F.2d 669· 10th Cir.· 1986-04-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated during his state trial, and therefore, his petition for a writ of habeas corpus was properly denied. The court affirmed the district court's judgment.
• Consuelo Mercado v. Austin Police Dep't
  754 F.2d 1266· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an unconventional dismissal procedure under Rule 41(b) was permissible and did not deny due process, as the plaintiff failed to make an adequate offer of proof for her remaining witnesses and her own testimony was impeached.
• Schott Optical Glass, Inc. v. United States
  750 F.2d 62· Fed. Cir.· 1984-12-11 ·cited 4×
  A prior decision upholding a customs classification is not binding under stare decisis if the importer presents new evidence demonstrating the prior decision was clearly erroneous.
• United States v. Washington
  746 F.2d 104· 2d Cir.· 1984-09-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while admitting a prior conviction for the same offense as the one on trial for impeachment purposes is dangerous, it was not reversible error in this case. The court agreed that no basis was shown to reverse the conviction.
• Peeler v. Wyrick
  734 F.2d 378· 8th Cir.· 1984-05-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that even if witness intimidation occurred, its impact was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, thus affirming the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
• Richard "Dick" Robinson v. United States
  718 F.2d 336· 10th Cir.· 1983-09-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the administrative law judge did not err in precluding affirmative defenses and that the $500 fine was not excessive, affirming the agency's order.
• E.C. v. State
  426 So. 2d 1292· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-02-22 ·cited 4×
  The court reversed a juvenile's adjudication for aggravated battery because the trial court erred in excluding testimony about the juvenile's awareness of the victim's prior violent incidents, which was relevant to establish the juvenile's reasonable belief in the necessity of de
• Crisp v. Mayabb
  668 F.2d 1127· 10th Cir.· 1981-09-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the state's petition for rehearing should be denied because the petitioner made a bona fide effort to exhaust state remedies, and the state's subsequent arguments lacked merit.
• Lane v. Geiger-Berger Assocs., P.C.
  608 F.2d 1148· 8th Cir.· 1979-11-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the damage instruction was not plain error because the parties were not joint tortfeasors, and the pre-trial order superseded the pleadings, establishing the issues for trial.
• Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  600 F.2d 132· 8th Cir.· 1979-06-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the company's rules prohibiting employees from distributing or making "false" statements were overbroad and violated the NLRA, and that the company's discriminatory enforcement of its distribution rule also violated the Act. The court also affirmed the NLRB's
• United States v. Willene McCOWAN
  471 F.2d 361· 10th Cir.· 1972-12-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or in denying motions for acquittal, as sufficient evidence supported the convictions and the rulings did not constitute prejudicial error.
• Alva J. Guest and Gladys v. Guest
  448 F.2d 433· 6th Cir.· 1971-09-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the exclusion of witness statements was not reversible error.
• United States v. 1
  446 F.2d 1234· 10th Cir.· 1971-08-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the limitation on the number of comparable sales was not an error of law, and while the Commission's initial denial of additional sales lacked proper consideration of comparability, the District Court's subsequent review and denial based on lack of comparabili
• Am. Universal Ins. Co. v. Sterling
  203 F.2d 159· 3d Cir.· 1953-03-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the plaintiff's failure to plead compliance with Pennsylvania insurance statutes warranted dismissal, the trial court should have allowed the plaintiff an opportunity to amend its complaint, particularly regarding allegations of excess insurance.
• Guenther v. The Armstrong Rubber Co.
  406 F.2d 1315· 3d Cir.· 1969-02-04 ·cited 3×
  A plaintiff is not bound by their own potentially mistaken testimony if other evidence contradicts it and supports their claim.
• Stephens v. Miller
  989 F.2d 264· 7th Cir.· 1993-06-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the exclusion of the defendant's testimony regarding a conversation during the alleged incident violated his Sixth Amendment right to testify and was not harmless error.
• United States v. Hernandez
  995 F.2d 307· 1st Cir.· 1993-05-12 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that jury instructions were adequate, evidence supported convictions for conspiracy, possession, and firearm offenses, and entrapment defense was not warranted.
• In re Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc. v. Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc.
  963 F.2d 855· 6th Cir.· 1992-05-07 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's order, holding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction to protect the debtor's reorganization efforts, even without a full evidentiary hearing, and that the recusal issue was not preserved
• Phillip v. ANR Freight Sys., Inc.
  945 F.2d 1054· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding ANR's past discrimination was erroneous and required reversal, but the judge's comments did not warrant recusal and the jury instructions were adequate.
• Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  922 F.2d 1357· 8th Cir.· 1990-12-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant failed to preserve essential evidence by not making an offer of proof, thus preventing a finding of plain error.
• Potts v. Benjamin
  882 F.2d 1320· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding the plaintiff's failure to wear a seatbelt and failure to use child restraint seats was not reversible error, as the defendants failed to make an adequate offer of proof regarding causation for comparative negligence or miti
• Evanston Bank v. Brink's, Inc.
  853 F.2d 512· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Brink's breached its contract with the bank by failing to return the $20,000 after agreeing to do so, despite Brink's attempts to argue the delivery was governed by a separate contract with the customer.
• Ulmer v. Associated DRY Goods Corp.
  823 F.2d 1278· 8th Cir.· 1987-07-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding evidence relevant to the circumstances of the plaintiff's arrest and subsequent prosecutions, which prevented the plaintiff from proving essential elements of his malicious prosecution claim.
• Lucinda Turner v. Heckler
  783 F.2d 657· 6th Cir.· 1986-02-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by issuing a preliminary injunction against the Secretary without considering the Secretary's offer of proof that the alleged procedural deficiency had been rectified.
• Diamond v. Wyrick
  757 F.2d 192· 8th Cir.· 1985-03-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioners failed to exhaust their state remedies for their habeas corpus claims, requiring dismissal of their petitions.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Lexington Cartage Co.
  713 F.2d 190· 6th Cir.· 1983-07-27 ·cited 2×
  An employer's duty to bargain with a certified union continues for one year from certification, and loss of majority status or union misconduct during that period does not justify refusal to bargain.
• United States v. Crawford
  601 F.2d 962· 8th Cir.· 1979-07-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel, as counsel's actions met the standard of a reasonably competent attorney and there was no prejudice.
• United States v. Chaney
  577 F.2d 433· 7th Cir.· 1978-06-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the exclusion of expert testimony regarding the bomb's contents was an abuse of discretion, requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Irwin
  546 F.2d 1048· 3d Cir.· 1976-12-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a defendant's motives for failing to report for military induction are irrelevant to a conviction under 50 U.S.C.App. § 462(a), and the jury instruction on 'willfulness' was adequate.