Offer Of Proof

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

• Elliott v. Maggiolo Corp.
  525 F.2d 439· 2d Cir.· 1975-09-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury's verdict and judgment were supported by sufficient evidence and that any alleged trial errors were either harmless or waived by the appellants' refusal of a mistrial.
• Castleberry v. NRM Corp.
  470 F.2d 1113· 10th Cir.· 1972-11-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to consider a juror's affidavit to impeach a unanimous verdict and in limiting cross-examination, nor in failing to instruct on strict liability when the issue was not preserved.
• Kenner v. Kenner & Kenner's Charitable Hosp., Inc.
  445 F.2d 19· 7th Cir.· 1971-06-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in excluding uncorroborated oral testimony and that the record's defects were fatal to the appeal.
• Int'l Paper Co. v. Standard Indus., Inc.
  389 F.2d 99· 10th Cir.· 1968-02-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding parol evidence regarding the parties' intent concerning which plans and specifications governed the contract.
• N. Am. Philips Co., Inc. v. Charles A. Church
  375 F.2d 93· 2d Cir.· 1967-03-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the exclusion of certain evidence regarding the taxpayer's belief about the taxability of its products and its pricing decisions was prejudicial error, requiring a new trial.
• Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Luisa Santos
  303 F.2d 309· 9th Cir.· 1962-05-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to allow examination regarding ownership of the insured property and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on the value of personal property.
• Kolstad v. United States
  262 F.2d 839· 9th Cir.· 1959-01-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to set aside a condemnation judgment based on a belated claim of partnership ownership and alleged accident or surprise from witness testimony, as the claims were not supported by evidence or pro
• Dobson v. Grand Trunk W. R.R. Co.
  248 F.2d 545· 7th Cir.· 1957-10-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in its jury instructions, submission of special interrogatories, or limitations on evidence, and that the jury's verdict was supported.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Milco Undergarment Co., Inc.
  212 F.2d 801· 3d Cir.· 1954-05-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the respondents failed to demonstrate prejudice from the trial examiner's limitation on cross-examination, and thus the Board's order should be enforced.
• Wilson v. Beckett
  143 F.2d 19· D.C. Cir.· 1944-05-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion by refusing a continuance for a witness's deposition.
• Eliezer Moshe Malek and Malke Malek v. Fed. Ins. Co.
  994 F.2d 49· 2d Cir.· 1993-04-30 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the district court committed several evidentiary errors, including excluding relevant testimony, improperly sequestering an expert witness, and allowing impeachment based on religious beliefs, which cumulatively prejudiced the plaintiffs and affected the subst
• Harrison v. Burlington N. R.R. Co.
  965 F.2d 155· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-22 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff waived her argument regarding jury instructions due to failure to object and that the district court properly excluded evidence under 23 U.S.C. § 409.
• Patterson v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  918 F.2d 540· 5th Cir.· 1990-12-06 ·cited 1×
  12 U.S.C. § 1823(e) does not preclude a borrower from asserting homestead rights under Texas law, even if the deed of trust contains a disclaimer, as long as the claim is not based on a separate agreement intended to deceive the FDIC. The denial of a directed verdict on the comme
• Def. I.D. # 2108001587A v. Rhandy D. Massey
  Del.· 2024-07-17
  The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion under the Rape Shield Statute (11 Del. C. § 3508) to admit evidence of the alleged victims' prior sexual conduct, as the defendant failed to make a sufficient showing of falsity of those prior allegations. Furthermore,
• Carnahan v. Norvell
  270 So. 3d 414· Fla. 4th DCA· 2019-04-24
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion in limine to exclude prior livestock escape evidence. The one prior incident Carnahan preserved (Carlton Road escape) was dissimilar to the collision at issue and failed to demonstrate the owner's negligence, as
• See Baker v. State
  9th Cir. Ct. App. Div.· 2014-01-03
  Appellant Latris Stanley appeals her convictions for Simple Battery and Disorderly Conduct, arguing the trial court improperly excluded evidence of the victim's violent reputation and prior acts of violence relevant to her self-defense claim. The appellate court affirms the convi
• In & for New Castle Cnty. Mayor James M. Baker v. C.A. No.: 99C-09-283-FSS Smith & Wesson Corp.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2002-11-27
  The court held that the common law municipal cost recovery rule applies in Delaware, barring municipalities from recovering the costs of governmental services from tortfeasors absent specific statutory authority. The court further found that the distinction between discrete and o
• Strine
  Del. Ch.· 2000-03-22
  The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reargument, finding no error in its prior decision that certain claims were time-barred. However, the court permitted the plaintiffs to amend their amended complaint to challenge the characterization of Merritt Loan proceeds distributed
• United States v. Carty
  993 F.2d 1005· 1st Cir.· 1993-05-28
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence seized under a warrant, nor in restricting cross-examination, nor in admitting 'other act' evidence at trial.
• Exline v. Gunter
  985 F.2d 487· 10th Cir.· 1993-02-03
  The federal court held that the state trial court's failure to conduct an in camera review of social service records violated the defendant's due process rights, as established in Pennsylvania v. Ritchie.
• Knudsen v. United States
  966 F.2d 733· 2d Cir.· 1992-06-10
  The court held that it was reversible error to preclude evidence showing that corporate taxes were paid into a federal depository account, as this evidence was relevant to the IRS's counterclaim for unpaid taxes.
• Elec. M & R, Inc. v. Banco Popular de Puerto RICO
  863 F.2d 1055· 1st Cir.· 1988-12-20
  The court held that even if excluded evidence were admitted, the plaintiff could not establish as a matter of law that damages flowed from the defendant's breach.
• Johnson v. State
  494 So. 2d 311· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-09-25
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding testimony about prior altercations because the defense failed to make a proper offer of proof, and the court did not err in refusing an attempted possession instruction as the evidence only supported a completed offense
• Polish Am. Mach. Corp. v. R.D. & D. Corp.
  760 F.2d 507· 3d Cir.· 1985-04-24
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing Polamco's damage theories, finding sufficient evidence of marketability and market value to create jury questions.
• Culver v. Slater Boat Co.
  688 F.2d 280· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-22
• Freeman Leroy Bell v. Harrison
  670 F.2d 656· 6th Cir.· 1982-02-09
  The court held that Tennessee's rape shield statute, T.C.A. § 40-2445, is constitutional on its face and as applied, and did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• United Fruit & Vegetable Co., Inc. v. Dir. OF the Fruit & Vegetable Div.
  668 F.2d 983· 8th Cir.· 1982-01-21
  The court held that the denial of a continuance was not an abuse of discretion and that the agency's decision revoking the license was supported by substantial evidence.
• United States v. 4
  450 F.2d 274· 9th Cir.· 1971-10-19
• Deardorff-Jackson Co. v. Nat'l Produce Distribs., Inc.
  447 F.2d 676· 7th Cir.· 1971-08-24
  The court held that the contract's interpretation regarding the quantity of Red Lasoda potatoes depended on whether the buyer was informed of the seller's limited production capacity before the contract was finalized.
• United States v. Velasquez-Vela
  443 F.2d 231· 9th Cir.· 1971-05-28
  The court held that the defendant failed to prove his United States citizenship under the relevant statute, and the district court properly denied his pre-trial motions.
• United States v. Grady Leroy King
  438 F.2d 1236· 9th Cir.· 1971-03-22
• Getty OIL Co. (Successor on Merger to Tidewater Oil Company) v. The United States
  399 F.2d 222· Ct. Cl.· 1968-07-17
  The court held that payments made by Tidewater to transferors of oil production allowables were not royalties, and thus Tidewater was entitled to the statutory percentage depletion allowance on the gross income from oil produced under those allowables.
• Molloy v. Bemis BRO. BAG Co.
  283 F.2d 32· 1st Cir.· 1960-10-19
  The court held that the district court erred in unduly restricting the issues and excluding evidence related to the duress cause of action, but affirmed the judgment on other causes of action.
• Edlin v. Firemen's Ins. Co.
  225 F.2d 80· 7th Cir.· 1955-07-25
  The court held that the trial court committed reversible error by excluding evidence relevant to the defendant's arson defense, specifically evidence of motive and expert opinion.
• Wash. Sand & Gravel Co. v. Brann & Stuart Co.
  162 F.2d 826· 3d Cir.· 1947-07-14
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial because the appellant failed to provide sufficient, non-speculative proof of damages.