Vicarious Admissions

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

• United States v. Lyles
  593 F.2d 182· 2d Cir.· 1979-01-31 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error by modifying its jury instructions after summations, denying severance motions, or admitting certain evidence, as no substantial prejudice was demonstrated.
• ST. Clair v. Local Union NO. 515 OF the Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters
  422 F.2d 128· 6th Cir.· 1969-12-30 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the district court committed reversible error in its evidentiary rulings and jury instructions regarding damages, requiring a new trial.
• United States v. The Southland Corp. & S. Richmond Dole & Eugene Mastropieri
  760 F.2d 1366· 2d Cir.· 1985-04-23 ·cited 46×
  The court held that a dual statute of limitations instruction was proper for a single indictment charging conspiracy with multiple objectives carrying different limitation periods, especially when special verdicts are used. It also affirmed the admissibility of attorney Matthews'
• Botte v. Pomeroy
  497 So. 2d 1275· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-11-12 ·cited 33×
  Robert Botte appealed a jury verdict finding the defendants immune under Florida's Good Samaritan Act after he suffered a spinal cord injury when Jack Edwards moved him following an accident. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding multiple erroneous evidentiary
• Brink's Inc. v. The City OF NEW York
  717 F.2d 700· 2d Cir.· 1983-09-06 ·cited 31×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict and damage awards, finding sufficient evidence for punitive damages and upholding the trial court's rulings on evidentiary matters and jury instructions.
• United States v. Price
  577 F.2d 1356· 9th Cir.· 1978-03-09 ·cited 30×
  The court held that erroneous limitation of cross-examination is not per se reversible error, but is tested by the harmless error standard. The information sought by cross-examination was adequately presented to the jury through other means.
• United States v. Kendricks
  623 F.2d 1165· 6th Cir.· 1980-07-02 ·cited 28×
  The admission of a non-testifying co-defendant's extrajudicial statements, made during and in furtherance of a conspiracy, is permissible under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule and does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• Shahid v. Gulf Power Co.
  291 F.2d 422· 5th Cir.· 1961-06-06 ·cited 28×
  The court held that summary judgment was appropriate because the appellants failed to present substantial evidence of negligence, and the record contained all evidence that would be developed at trial.
• Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. Rosenquist
  112 So. 2d 885· Fla. 2d DCA· 1959-05-22 ·cited 20×
  Montgomery Ward appealed a jury verdict for personal injuries sustained by Louise Rosenquist who fell down unwarned stairs in the defendant's store. The key issues were whether evidence of the assistant manager's extrajudicial admission regarding a missing warning sign was admiss
• Joseph T. Ryerson & SON, Inc. v. H. A. Crane & Brother, Inc.
  417 F.2d 1263· 3d Cir.· 1969-10-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on res ipsa loquitur or the duty of an adjoining landowner, and that an unidentified employee's statement was properly admitted as a vicarious admission.
• Wolcher v. United States
  233 F.2d 748· 9th Cir.· 1956-05-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the newly discovered evidence was inadmissible hearsay and did not present extraordinary circumstances to warrant disturbing the trial court's denial of a new trial.