Gem Realty Trust v. First Nat'L Bank, 86 F.3d 1146 (1st Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Gem Realty Trust v. First Nat'L Bank, 86 F.3d 1146 (1st Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
45 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. James Fry (ca8, 2015-07-01)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" United States v. James Fry
8th Cir. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Santana-Diaz v. United States, 86 F.3d 1146 , at *1 (1st Cir.1996) (“The mere fact that co-defendants, who pled guilty, received lesser sentences does not show that it is reasonably likely that Santana was vindictively sentenced.”).
discussed Cited "see" Barrett v. DuBois
Mass. Super. Ct. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See McGuinness v. Dubois, 891 F.Sup. 25, 28-29 (D.Mass. 1995), aff'd mem., 86 F.3d 1146 (1st Cir. 1996); Abrazinski v. Dubois, 876 F.Sup. 313, 319 (D.Mass. 1995); Vargas v. Dubois, Suffolk Superior Court, No. 93-942 (January 26, 1994) (Barrett, J.); MacDougall v. Dubois, Middlesex Superior Court, No. 93-3032, 2 Mass. L.
discussed Cited "see" In Re Leslie Fay Companies, Inc. (2×)
Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Adams v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 86 F.3d 1146 (1st Cir.1996), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 387 , 136 L.Ed.2d 303 (1996).
cited Cited "see" Leacock v. DuBois
D. Mass. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See McGuinness v. DuBois, 891 F.Supp. 25, 28-29 (D.Mass.1995), aff 'd, 86 F.3d 1146 (1st Cir.1996); Abrazinski v. DuBois, 876 F.Supp. 313, 319 (D.Mass.1995).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Converse Inc. v. Reebok International Ltd.
D. Mass. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Edwards v. New England Telephone, 86 F.3d 1146 , 1996 WL 267276 (1st Cir.1996) (per curiam and unpublished) (approving of the district court’s analysis in Gerakaris).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bogosian v. Woloohojian
D.R.I. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Bogosian v. Woloohojian, 901 F.Supp. 68 (D.R.I.1995), appeal dismissed, 86 F.3d 1146 (1st Cir.1996); Bogosian v. Woloohojian, 882 F.Supp. 258 (D.R.I.1995); Flanders + Medeiros, Inc. v. Bogosian, 868 F.Supp. 412 (D.R.I.1994), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 65 F.3d 198 (1st Cir.1995); Bogosian v. Woloohojian, 831 F.Supp. 47 (D.R.I.1993); Bogosian v. Woloohojian Realty Corp., 923 F.2d 898 (1st Cir.1991); Bogosian v. Woloohojian, 7 49 F.Supp. 396 (D.R.I.1990). 3 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Mitchell
Ohio Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Santana-Diaz v. United States (C.A.1, 1996), 86 F.3d 1146 ; United States v. Mena-Robles (C.A.1, 1993), 4 F.3d 1026 , modified on other grounds sub nom.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gem Realty Trust
v.
First Nat'L Bank
95-1649.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Apr 26, 1996.
86 F.3d 1146
Unpublished

86 F.3d 1146

NOTICE: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 states unpublished opinions may be cited only in related cases.
GEM REALTY TRUST, Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON, et al., Defendants, Appellees.

No. 95-1649.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

April 26, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire [Hon. Shane Devine, Senior U.S. District Judge]

James H. Gambrill, with whom Engel, Gearreald and Gardner, P.A. was on brief for appellant.

Bruce W. Felmly, with whom Byrne J. Decker and McLane, Graf, Raulerson & Middleton, P.A. were on brief for appellees.

Before TORRUELLA, Chief Judge, and CYR and BOUDIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

GEM Realty Trust appeals from a district court judgment based on a jury verdict dismissing its challenge to a mortgage foreclosure sale conducted by First National Bank of Boston against certain New Hampshire real property owned by GEM. On appeal, GEM presses various objections to the district court's jury instructions and evidentiary rulings. Following full briefing and oral argument, we affirm the district court judgment and comment briefly on but two claims raised by GEM on appeal.

2

A careful review of the record and the controlling New Hampshire precedent persuades us that the district court fairly and accurately conveyed the governing principles of New Hampshire law in its instructions to the jury. See Davet v. Maccarone, 973 F.2d 22, 26 (1st Cir.1992), for our standard of review, and Murphy v. Financial Dev. Corp., 495 A.2d 1245 (N.H.1985), for the applicable law. And the district court did not abuse its discretion, Bates v. Shearson Lehman Bros., 42 F.3d 79, 83 (1st Cir.1994), either by excluding the marginally probative and potentially confusing evidence relating to the first forbearance agreement between the parties, see Fed.R.Evid. 401-03, or by sustaining the Bank's hearsay objection, see Fed.R.Evid. 801, to the Katsaros real estate appraisal as plainly cumulative in light of other appraisals before the jury, see id. 403.

3

Accordingly, the district court judgment is affirmed.