Brazos River Auth. v. GE Ionics, Inc.
469 F.3d 416 (5th Cir. 2006) Cited 282 times 5 Legal AnalysesHolding a party “violated rule 30(b) by failing to prepare” a witness “with respect to issues that although not within his personal knowledge, were within the corporate knowledge of the organization”
Rozier v. Ford Motor Co.
573 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir. 1978) Cited 545 timesHolding "only the most egregious misconduct, such as bribery of a judge or members of a jury, or the fabrication of evidence by a party in which an attorney is implicated, will constitute a fraud on the court"
Martinez v. Bally's Louisiana, Inc.
244 F.3d 474 (5th Cir. 2001) Cited 187 timesHolding “ judicial admission is a formal concession in the pleadings or stipulations by a party or counsel that is binding on the party making them”
Murrey v. U.S.
73 F.3d 1448 (7th Cir. 1996) Cited 172 timesHolding that "the administrative claim must narrate facts from which a legally trained reader would infer a failure to obtain informed consent"
Collins v. Wayne Corp.
621 F.2d 777 (5th Cir. 1980) Cited 218 timesHolding that deposition testimony does not constitute a binding judicial admission and a party is free to explain why its position at trial is inconsistent with its deposition testimony
Kohler v. Leslie Hindman, Inc.
80 F.3d 1181 (7th Cir. 1996) Cited 104 timesHolding that statement in another suit operates as evidentiary admission, to be weighed with other evidence, not binding judicial admission
Wackman v. Rubsamen
602 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2010) Cited 66 timesConcluding that some "analytical gaps," where acknowledged by the expert and explained, go to the weight of the evidence rather than to admissibility
General Motors Corp. v. Burry
203 S.W.3d 514 (Tex. App. 2006) Cited 63 timesHolding that expert sufficiently explained how the proposed alternative safer design would function
U.S. v. Lopez
979 F.2d 1024 (5th Cir. 1993) Cited 83 timesHolding that extrinsic evidence is admissible to contradict specific testimony
United States v. Opager
589 F.2d 799 (5th Cir. 1979) Cited 68 timesHolding that Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b), which bars the introduction of extrinsic evidence of specific conduct to attack or support a witness' character for truthfulness, is "inapplicable in determining the admissibility of relevant evidence introduced to contradict a witness's testimony as to a material issue"
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 97,825 times 674 Legal AnalysesAdopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Rule 403 - Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons
Fed. R. Evid. 403 Cited 23,020 times 84 Legal AnalysesAdopting a similar standard, but requiring the probative value to be "substantially outweighed" by these risks
Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay
Fed. R. Evid. 801 Cited 19,392 times 75 Legal AnalysesHolding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party
Rule 404 - Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.
Fed. R. Evid. 404 Cited 17,006 times 65 Legal AnalysesRecognizing that even uncharged similar acts can be probative of a defendant's intent and knowledge concerning charged offenses
Rule 7 - Pleadings Allowed; Form of Motions and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 Cited 7,742 times 2 Legal AnalysesDefining "pleadings" for purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 103 - Rulings on Evidence
Fed. R. Evid. 103 Cited 3,464 times 18 Legal AnalysesHolding that once a court makes a definitive ruling on the record to either admit or exclude evidence, at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection at trial to preserve any alleged error for appeal