Young v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company (1980)

See Brandt v. French, 638 F.2d 209, 212 (10th Cir. 1981); Young v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co., 618 F.2d 332, 338 (5th Cir. 1980). 7 We do not rule on the admissibility of this evidence on these grounds on this appeal, because appellants failed to object to the evidence as an unfair reenactment.

Co., 618 F.2d 332, 337 (5th Cir.1980).

Co., 618 F.2d 332, 337 (5th Cir.1980) (quotations omitted).

In reviewing the evidence of materiality presented to the district court, we must bear in mind that “[t]he federal rules and practice favor the admission of evidence rather than its exclusion if it has any probative value at all.” Young v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co., 618 F.2d 332, 337 (5th Cir.1980) (quoting United States v. Carranco, 551 F.2d 1197 (10th Cir.1977)).

Co., 618 F.2d 332, 337 (5th Cir.1980).

Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable.” Fed.R.Evid. 401; Young v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co., 618 F.2d 332, 337 (5th Cir. 1980).

Young v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co., 618 F.2d 332, 336 (5th Cir. 1980).

Since his character was at issue and therefore not within Rule 404(a), the admission of the evidence was within the discretion of the trial court. 5 Miller v. Universal City *1253 Studios, Inc., 650 F.2d 1365, 1374 (5th Cir. 1981); Young v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co., 618 F.2d 332, 337 (5th Cir. 1980).

“It is well settled in this circuit that motions for new trial are directed to the sound discretion of the trial court and that, absent a clear abuse of discretion, the ruling of the trial court on such a motion will not be disturbed.” Young v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co., 618 F.2d 332, 336 (5th Cir. 1980).

Co., 618 F.2d 332, 337 (5th Cir. 1980).

Young v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co., 618 F.2d 332, 337 (CA5 1980).

Young v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company, 618 F.2d 332, 340 (5th Cir.1980).

Co., 618 F.2d 332, 337 (5th Cir. 1980) (“[i]t must be remembered that ‘(t)he federal rules and practice favor the admission of evidence rather than its exclusion if it has any probative value at all.” (quoting United States v. Carranco, 551 F.2d 1197 (10th Cir. 1977)). 38 • the Mississippi Constitution; or • these rules.

Co., 618 F.2d 332, 339 (5th Cir. 1980) (noting that evidence of earlier accidents offered for the "sole purpose" of showing that defendant had notice of an "arguably dangerous" condition can be considered by the jury for the purpose of determining whether a reasonably prudent entity would have taken precautions against future accidents).

Co., 618 F.2d 332, 339 (5th Cir. 1980) (noting that evidence of earlier accidents offered for the “sole purpose” of establishing notice of an “arguably dangerous” condition). 32 Kumar, 2009 WL 198042 , at *2 (citing Denver Policemen's Protective Ass'n v. Lichtenstein, 660 F.2d 432, 434 (10th Cir. 1981)): 33 See Denver Policemen’s, 660 F.3d at 435 (citing Martinelli v. Dist.

Co., 618 F.2d 332, 337 (5th Cir. 1980) (“Trial courts must not lose sight, however, of the liberal nature of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Co., 618 F.2d 332, 337 (5th Cir. 1980) (“Trial courts must not lose sight, however, of the liberal nature of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Co., 618 F.2d 332, 337 (5th Cir.1980) (finding error in trial court’s exclusion of expert’s opinion concerning dangerous condition of crossing).

Co., 618 F.2d 332, 337 (5th Cir.1980); Green v. Gulf, M. & O.R.

Co., 618 F.2d 332, 335-36 (5th Cir.1980) (in suit arising from collision with train crossing, claiming absence of appropriate warning, testimony relating lay witnesses’ observations of their difficulties with the crossing held admissible).

Co., 618 F.2d 332, 337 (5th Cir. 1980); Green v. Gulf, M.& O.

Co., 618 F.2d 332, 337 (5th Cir.1980)).

Co., 618 F. 2d 332, 337 (5th Cir. 1980)).

See also Young v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co., 618 F.2d 332, 339 (5th Cir. 1980).

See Young v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co., 618 F.2d 332, 338 (5th Cir. 1980) (motion picture experiment was ad *1151 missible to show physical possibility of decedent’s car being diverted onto railroad track); Sanchez v. Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co., 538 F.2d 304, 305-06 (10th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1042 , 97 S.Ct. 742 , 50 L.Ed.2d 754 (1977) (motion picture admissible to depict reenactment of accident); Zurzolo v. General Motors Corp., 69 F.R.D.…

See, e.g., Young v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co., 618 F.2d 332, 338 (5 Cir.1980) (film sought to be introduced through expert witness showing that car would be directed onto railroad track at crossing unless wheels turned to right was not a re-enactment and was improperly excluded).

See, e.g., Young v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co., 618 F.2d 332, 338 (5 Cir.1980) (film sought to be introduced through expert witness showing that car would be directed onto railroad track at crossing unless wheels turned to right was not a re-enactment and was improperly excluded). 11 Defendants are correct that demonstrations of experiments used to illustrate the principles used in forming an expert opinion are not always required to adhere strictly to the circumstan…

See Young v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co., 618 F.2d 332, 337 (5th Cir.1980).

See Young v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R., 618 F.2d 332 , 337-38 (5th Cir.1980); Vitt v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., 340 So.2d 962, 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).