Rule 51

29 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Hobson v. Wilson
  737 F.2d 1· D.C. Cir.· 1984-06-08 ·cited 237×
  The court held that the District of Columbia and its employees can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), and that certain claims against FBI defendants were barred by the statute of limitations, while others against MPD defendants and the District lacked sufficient evidence.
• Chicago Great W. Ry. Co. v. Casura
  234 F.2d 441· 8th Cir.· 1956-06-07 ·cited 60×
  The court held that while the judgment against both defendants is affirmed, the railway company is entitled to indemnity from Swift & Company because Swift's negligence was the primary cause of the injury.
• Shokuwan Shimabukuro v. Higeyoshi Nagayama
  140 F.2d 13· D.C. Cir.· 1944-01-03 ·cited 50×
• Richfield OIL Corp. v. Karseal Corp.
  271 F.2d 709· 9th Cir.· 1959-10-13 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict regarding illegal restraint and damages, and that while the jury instructions on the effect of a prior antitrust decree were technically erroneous, the error was not prejudicial.
• Walsh v. Miehle-Goss-Dexter, Inc.
  378 F.2d 409· 3d Cir.· 1967-05-12 ·cited 26×
  The dissenting judge believes the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should have been granted, finding the plaintiff's conduct constituted negligence per se.
• Glaros v. H.H. Robertson Co.
  797 F.2d 1564· Fed. Cir.· 1986-07-22 ·cited 25×
  The court affirmed the district court's partial summary judgment invalidating claims 1 and 3 for obviousness, and affirmed the jury's verdict finding claim 2 not invalid and willfully infringed, along with the denial of post-trial motions.
• Nat'l Indus., Inc. v. Sharon Steel Corp.
  781 F.2d 1545· 11th Cir.· 1986-02-13 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the jury's award for lost profits was supported by sufficient evidence, but the award for loss of goodwill and reputation was not supported by substantial evidence and was properly set aside by judgment n.o.v.
• Bolan v. Lehigh Valley R. Co.
  167 F.2d 934· 2d Cir.· 1948-05-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that compliance with a regulation does not excuse a violation of the Boiler Inspection Act, and that a jury verdict supported by probative facts will not be overturned due to speculation.
• EL Ranco, Inc. v. The First Nat'l Bank OF Nev.
  406 F.2d 1205· 9th Cir.· 1968-10-30 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the jury's verdicts on the contract and conspiracy claims were supported by sufficient evidence, and that various procedural and evidentiary objections raised by the appellants were without merit.
• Martin v. United Fruit Co.
  272 F.2d 347· 2d Cir.· 1959-12-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the plaintiff waived objections to jury interrogatories by failing to make specific objections at trial and that the trial court properly excluded the issue of hinge placement from jury consideration due to lack of expert testimony.
• Ill. Cent. R. Co. v. Sigler
  122 F.2d 279· 6th Cir.· 1941-08-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court properly denied motions for a directed verdict and that there was no reversible error in the consolidated wrongful death actions.
• Mrs. Betty G. Wingerter v. Md. Cas. Co. & Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
  313 F.2d 754· 5th Cir.· 1963-01-30 ·cited 18×
  A jury verdict awarding zero damages is not invalid and does not necessitate a new trial, especially when the jury may have found no liability or no damages.
• Voltmann v. United Fruit Co.
  147 F.2d 514· 2d Cir.· 1945-02-05 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge believes the jury charge correctly applied an objective standard of negligence, and the verdict should be upheld despite a minor linguistic ambiguity.
• Cutter v. Cincinnati Union Terminal Co.
  361 F.2d 637· 6th Cir.· 1966-06-18 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the jury verdict, holding that the defendant's procedural failures precluded challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, and that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in upholding the verdict as not against the weight of the evidence or excessive.
• Cafasso v. Pa. R. Co.
  169 F.2d 451· 3d Cir.· 1948-08-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting a co-employee's prior statement, refusing to admit evidence of the defendant's custom regarding statements, or in his comments regarding a witness not called by either party.
• Perkinson v. Gilbert/Robinson, Inc.
  821 F.2d 686· D.C. Cir.· 1987-06-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding sanctions for discovery abuse, but erred in its jury instructions regarding negligence per se and contributory negligence.
• Guarnieri v. Kewanee-Ross Corp.
  270 F.2d 575· 2d Cir.· 1959-10-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in its charge and application of New York law regarding indemnification between Kewanee and Burnham, and that Kewanee was entitled to a new trial on its third-party claim.
• Hoag v. City of Detroit
  185 F.2d 764· 6th Cir.· 1950-12-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court properly submitted the question of practicability to the jury and that no reversible error occurred regarding jury instructions or evidentiary rulings.
• Goodyear Fabric Corp. v. Hirss
  169 F.2d 115· 1st Cir.· 1948-07-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury charge, when viewed in its entirety, adequately conveyed the central issue of the comparative condition of the premises at the beginning and end of the lease, despite a potentially confusing initial phrasing.
• Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. Pub. Util. Dist. NO. 1 OF Whatcom Cnty.
  123 F.2d 286· 9th Cir.· 1941-10-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the public utility district's taking of properties was a public necessity and that the trial court did not err in its rulings on evidence or jury instructions regarding just compensation.
• Smith v. The Travelers Ins. Co.
  438 F.2d 373· 6th Cir.· 1971-02-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that objections to jury instructions were waived, admission of certain letters was harmless error, and prejudicial closing arguments did not warrant a new trial given curative instructions.
• Clifford Barney (Plaintiff) v. The Staten Island Rapid Transit Ry. Co.
  316 F.2d 38· 3d Cir.· 1963-04-08 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment for defendants John H. Grace Co. and Hunt Manufacturing Company, and remanded for a new trial against Staten Island Rapid Transit Company.
• Comparet v. United States
  164 F.2d 452· 10th Cir.· 1947-12-03 ·cited 6×
  The fair market value of property taken by eminent domain should be determined as of the date of taking, not the date of trial.
• Balchunas v. Palmer
  151 F.2d 842· 2d Cir.· 1945-11-05 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the trial court's jury charge regarding the Connecticut statute on the presumption of reasonable care and the burden of proving contributory negligence was adequate, and the exclusion of certain evidence was not reversible error.
• Home Design Servs., Inc. v. Turner Heritage Homes Inc.
  825 F.3d 1314· 11th Cir.· 2016-06-17 ·cited 4×
  The concurring opinion agrees with the panel's conclusion that precedent requires affirmance of the district court's judgment but argues that the precedent itself, Intervest Construction, Inc. v. Canterbury Estate Homes, Inc., represents a flawed approach to copyright jurispruden
• Castrignano v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc.
  900 F.2d 455· 1st Cir.· 1990-04-05 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of a new trial, finding that the defendant failed to preserve its objections to jury instructions and that the Rhode Island Supreme Court's decision did not constitute a change in law requiring a new trial. The court also affirmed th
• Grand River Dam Auth. v. Thompson
  118 F.2d 242· 10th Cir.· 1941-03-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting the question of whether land constituted a single unit to the jury, nor in failing to instruct on separate verdicts when no exceptions were properly saved.
• Abelous Mayeaux and Whitney J. Roussell v. Am. Mut. Liab. Ins. Corp.
  409 F.2d 508· 5th Cir.· 1969-04-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain evidence and admitting other testimony.
• Wantland v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co.
  237 F.2d 921· 7th Cir.· 1956-11-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court committed prejudicial error by instructing the jury on damages for elements that the plaintiff had waived, and that the defendant's objection to another instruction was not properly preserved.