§Why CasetextPricing

Complete Entertainment Resources LLC v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. et al

OPPOSITION to MOTION IN LIMINE

12 Cited authorities

  1. United States Steel, LLC v. Tieco, Inc.

    261 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2001)   Cited 261 times
    Holding that substantial prejudice was shown where the appellees had relied on erroneously admitted evidence "throughout the trial" and "notably" during closing arguments

  2. Wilson v. Williams

    182 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 1999)   Cited 277 times
    Holding that adaptation to adverse ruling on motion in limine did not waive established objection

  3. Microstrategy Inc. v. Business Objects, S.A

    429 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 146 times
    Holding that "this court reviews a district court's evidentiary rulings under the law of the regional circuit"

  4. U.S. v. York

    933 F.2d 1343 (7th Cir. 1991)   Cited 160 times
    Holding that statements demonstrating inside knowledge of the crime are against penal interest

  5. Nipper v. Snipes

    7 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 1993)   Cited 100 times
    Holding that "judicial findings of fact are not public records within the meaning of Rule 803(C)" and stating that "when the drafters of the Federal Rules of Evidence wanted to allow the admission of judgments or their underlying facts, they did so expressly"

  6. U.S. v. DeSantis

    134 F.3d 760 (6th Cir. 1998)   Cited 76 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error was not harmless "in light of[, inter alia ,] the repeated references the prosecution made" to improper evidence that was materially suggestive of the defendant's guilt

  7. Blue Cross and Blue Shield v. Philip Morris

    141 F. Supp. 2d 320 (E.D.N.Y. 2001)   Cited 27 times
    Finding that "[w]hile a trial court should prevent outside judicial decisions from clouding jury findings, it may consider them itself in deciding whether an expert's proposed testimony is sufficiently reliable to permit it under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence."

  8. Sayad v. Miller

    No. C 13-1915 SI (pr) (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2014)

    No. C 13-1915 SI (pr) 02-05-2014 CINDY NORMA SAYAD, Petitioner, v. WALTER MILLER, warden, Respondent. SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY INTRODUCTION Cindy Norma Sayad filed this pro se action seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter is now before the court for consideration of the merits of the habeas petition. For the reasons discussed below, the petition is denied. BACKGROUND

  9. Bey v. Tampkins

    Case No. CV 13-1356-ABC (JPR) (C.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2014)

    Case No. CV 13-1356-ABC (JPR) 01-28-2014 HERBERT JOHNSON BEY, Petitioner, v. CYNTHIA Y. TAMPKINS, Warden, Respondent. AUDREY B. COLLINS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS SERVED BY FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID, TO ALL COUNSEL (OR PARTIES) AT THEIR RESPECTIVE MOST RECENT ADDRESS OF RECORD IN THIS ACTION ON THIS DATE. ______________ DEPUTY CLERK JUDGMENT Pursuant to the Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations of U.S. Magistrate Judge, IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that this action is dismissed

  10. Torah Soft Ltd. v. Drosnin

    00 Civ. 0676 (JCF) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2003)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that where a prior judicial opinion in a related action may have preclusive effects, the opinion may be admissible evidence

  11. Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,069 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

  12. Rule 611 - Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 611   Cited 1,886 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Granting trial judge broad discretion to control witness examination