green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
9.9 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1985 ·
…it is not for witnesses to instruct the jury as to applicable principles of law, but for the judge.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 36 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Gruss
this court requires the exclusion of testimony which states a legal conclusion
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Strickland v. Royal Lubricant Co., Inc.
it is not for the witnesses to instruct the jury as to the applicable principles of law, but for the judge.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
37 Fair empl.prac.cas. 535, 36 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 35,085, 17 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 978 Belen Torres, (83-1194), (83-1239, 83-1453) v. County of Oakland and Oakland County Community Mental Health Services Board, Jointly and Severally, (83-1194), (83-1239, 83-1453)
it is not for witnesses to instruct the jury as to applicable principles of law, but for the judge.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Torres v. County of Oakland
it is not for witnesses to instruct the jury as to applicable principles of law, but for the judge.
cited
Cited "see"
Starling v. Fuller
See Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners' Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 508-09 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
Eduardo Burkhart v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
(2×)
See Marx & Co. v. Diners' Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 509-10 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977). 29 Even aside from Spurlock's erroneous formulation of the pertinent law, we are also troubled by Spurlock's testimony that Officer Gray's communications with Burkhart were not "as effective" as the means of communication with others.
discussed
Cited "see"
Rafael Aguilar v. International Longshoremen's Union Local 10 International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union Pacific Maritime Association
See Marx v. Diners Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505 , 509 (2d Cir.1977) (expert testimony consisting of legal conclusions regarding existence of contract or meaning of its terms not admissible), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Gibson
See Marx & Co. v. Diners’ Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 508-10 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rachelle Hines, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Clark Hines, Deceased v. British Steel Corporation
See Hurst v. Triad Shipping Co., 554 F.2d 1237, 1248-53 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977) (pre-Scm- dia case discussing Restatement (Second) Torts §§ 318, 343, 414, and finding that only Section 414 comports with congress’s intent with regard to the liability of a vessel under the LHWCA).
cited
Cited "see"
Frank Andrews v. Metro North Commuter Railroad Co., Penn Central Corporation, Consolidated Rail Corporation, National Railroad Passenger Corp.
See Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners’ Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505 , 510 & n. 15 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. James C. Curtis
See Marx & Co. v. Diners’ Club, 550 F.2d 505 , 509-10 (2d Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977); Note, supra, at 1362.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Fernando Fuentes-Coba
See Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners’ Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 510 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977).
cited
Cited "see"
Sharkey v. Airco, Inc.
See Hurst v. Triad Shipping Co., 554 F.2d 1237, 1251 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
Charles Evans v. Transportacion Maritime Mexicana Ss \Campeche\""
(2×)
See Hurst v. Triad Shipping Co., 554 F.2d 1237, 1249-50 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977) (§§ 416-429 inapplicable to LHWCA because those sections impose vicarious liability, contrary to the intent of Congress); Riddle v. Exxon Transp.
discussed
Cited "see"
Sarauw v. Oceanic Navigation Corporation Vlcc
See Hurst v. Triad Shipping Co., 554 F.2d 1237 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977); Rich v. United States Lines, Inc., 596 F.2d 541 (3d Cir.1979); and Griffith v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 610 F.2d 116 (3d Cir.1979). 10 In Hurst, we concluded that because the 1972 Amendments abolished unseaworthiness as a basis of liability, all species of liability without fault were abolished as well, including the doctrine of nondelegable duties. 554 F.2d at 1246-47 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Sarauw v. Oceanic Navigation Corp.
See Hurst v. Triad Shipping Co., 554 F.2d 1237 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977); Rich v. United States Lines, Inc., 596 F.2d 541 (3d Cir.1979); and Griffith v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 610 F.2d 116 (3d Cir.1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Moses Pino
The Committee states that “[t]hese provisions afford ampie assurances against the admission of opinions which would merely tell the jury what result to reach, somewhat in the manner of the oath-helpers of an earlier day.” (Emphasis added); see Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners’ Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505 , 511 n. 17 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 . 12 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Simko v. C & C Marine Maintenance Co.
See Hurst v. Triad Shipping Co., 554 F.2d 1237 , 1243—14 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977); Griffith v. Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 521 F.2d 31, 40 (3d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1054 , 96 S.Ct. 785 , 46 L.Ed.2d 643 (1976). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Simko v. Marine Maintenance Co.
See Hurst v. Triad Shipping Co., 554 F.2d 1237 , 1243-44 (3d Cir.), Cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977); Griffith v. Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 521 F.2d 31, 40 (3d Cir. 1975), Cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1054 , 96 S.Ct. 785 , 46 L.Ed.2d 643 (1976) 2 The court instructed the jury that if they found Simko to be a member of the crew of only ACBL # 2699, they could still find against C & C on the Jones Act claim if they found that C & C was owner pro hac vice of that barge.
discussed
Cited "see"
Dougherty v. Haaland
See Hurst v. Triad Shipping Co., 554 F.2d 1237 , 1249-50 n. 35 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977); Brown v. Ivarans Rederi A/S, 545 F.2d 854 , 863-64 n. 10 (3d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 969 , 97 S.Ct. 1652 , 52 L.Ed.2d 361 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lamar Advertising Company v. Zurich American Insurance Company
See also Marx & Co. v. Diner's Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505 , 509–10 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977) (“It is not for witnesses to instruct the jury as to applicable principles of law, but for the judge.”); 3 J.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Buchanan
To the, extent that it recounts issues of fact — whether Mr. Buchanan in fact misapplied Bank funds — it invades the jury’s function: “Mere qualification as an expert is not license to invade the jury’s function by telling the jury what result to reach, ... nor is it appropriate for an expert to supplant the judge’s function to instruct the jury on the law.” Fund of Funds, Ltd. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 545 F.Supp. 1314, 1372 (S.D.N.Y.1982); see also Marx & Co. v. Diners’ Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 509-510 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (19…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. John Sinclair
Compare Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners' Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977) with United States v. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285, 1294-95 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 813 , 112 S.Ct. 63 , 116 L.Ed.2d 39 (1991). 2 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Newman
See, e.g., *7 Hygh v. Jacobs, 961 F.2d 369 , 363 (2d Cir.1992); Torres v. County of Oakland, 758 F.2d 147, 150 (6th Cir.1985); see also Marx & Co. v. Diners’ Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 512 (2d Cir.) (“It is hot for witnesses to instruct the jury as to applicable principles of law, but for the judge.”), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Zych v. Unidentified, Wrecked, and Abandoned Vessel, Believed to Be the SB \Seabird\""
Franz Lange G.m.B.H. & Co., 387 F.Supp. 440, 443 (E.D.Pa.1974) (three-judge court)); see also Hurst v. Triad Shipping Co., 554 F.2d 1237, 1244-45 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Haberern v. Kaupp Vascular Surgeons Ltd.
See, e.g., First National State Bank v. Reliance Electric Co., 668 F.2d 725, 731 (3d Cir.1981) and Bauman v. Centex Corp., 611 F.2d 1115, 1121 (5th Cir.1980), cited by Defendants, and Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners’ Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 509 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Angelo Ruggiero, Gene Gotti and John Carneglia
Scop, 846 F.2d at 141-42 (emphasis added); see also United States v. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285, 1294-95 (2d Cir.1991) (“[Scop and Marx & Co. v. Diner’s Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977)] establish that although an expert may opine on an issue of fact within the jury’s province, he may not give testimony stating ultimate legal conclusions based on those facts.”); Diaz, 878 F.2d at 617 -18 (quoting Scop, 846 F.2d at 141-42 ).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Zych v. Unidentified, Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel, Believed to Be the SB \Lady Elgin\""
See also Hurst v. Triad Shipping Co., 554 F.2d 1237, 1244 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Channel Master Satellite, Systems, Inc. v. JFD Electronics Corp.
See, e.g., Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners’ Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 509-10 (2d Cir.1977) (The Second Circuit found that the district court erred in allowing a securities expert to testify as to the legal effect of a securities contract, commenting that “It is not for witnesses to instruct the jury as to applicable principles of law, but for the judge.”), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Mecca v. Gibraltar Corp. of America
See, e.g., Marx & Co. v. Diners’ Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
23 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 893, 26 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 860 United States of America v. Carol G. Unruh, William L. Fowler, Robert Hopper, Stephen C. Forde, Defendants
See Cooley v. United States, 501 F.2d 1249, 1253-54 (9th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1123 , 95 S.Ct. 809 , 42 L.Ed.2d 824 (1975); see also Marx & Co. v. Diners' Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 509-10 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Unruh
See Cooley v. United States, 501 F.2d 1249, 1253-54 (9th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1123 , 95 S.Ct. 809 , 42 L.Ed.2d 824 (1975); see also Marx & Co. v. Diners’ Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 509-10 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Margaret Scott v. Sears, Roebuck & Company
See, e.g., Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners’ Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 510 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977); United States v. Collins, 395 F.Supp. 629, 637 (M.D.Pa.), aff'd mem., 523 F.2d 1051 (3d Cir.1975).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Clarence F. Davis v. Combustion Engineering, Inc.
(2×)
United States v. Fogg, 652 F.2d 551, 557 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 905 , [ 102 S.Ct. 1751 , 72 L.Ed.2d 162 ] (1982)." Owen v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 698 F.2d 236, 240 (5th Cir.1983). "[C]ourts must remain vigilant against the admission of legal conclusions." United States v. Milton, 555 F.2d 1198, 1203 (5th Cir.1977); see also Marx & Co. v. Diners' Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 508-512 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977). 71 In sum, I would be prepared to concur in a judgment of reinstatement and a limited damage award despite what I consider to be …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
James Davison v. Pacific Inland Navigation Company, Inc., a Washington Corporation, and Mitsubishi International Corporation, a New York Corporation
See also Hurst v. Triad Shipping Co., 554 F.2d 1237, 1241-44 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, -U.S.-, 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977); Munoz v. Flota Merchante Grancolombiana, S. A., 553 F.2d 837, 839-10 (2d Cir. 1977).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Espinoza v. United States Lines, Inc.
(2×)
See, e. g., Hurst v. Triad Shipping Co., 554 F.2d 1237 , 1246 & n.23 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, -U.S. -, 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977); Gay v. Ocean Transport & Trading Co., 546 F.2d 1233, 1237-38 (5th Cir. 1977); Napoli v. [Transpacific Carriers, etc.] Hellenic Lines, Ltd., 536 F.2d 505, 507 (2d Cir. 1976); Bess v. Agromar Line, 518 F.2d 738, 741 (4th Cir. 1975).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Donahue
v.
Board of Elections of New York
v.
Board of Elections of New York
No. 77-191.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 3, 1977.
Published
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.