National Industries, Inc. v. Sharon Steel Corporation (1986)
green
· 74 citation events
across 14 courts.
Showing the 15 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198620062026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
As the Fourth Circuit has noted, "rigid application of this rule is inappropriate ... where such application serves neither of the rule's rationales--protecting the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury, and ensuring that the opposing party has enough notice of the alleged error to permit an attempt to cure it before resting." FSLIC v. Reeves, 816 F.2d 130, 138 (4th Cir.1987); see also McCarty v. Pheasant Run, Inc. 826 F.2d 1554, 1556 (7th Cir.1987) (modern rationale of r…
purpose of directed verdict requirement is to avoid ambushing court and opposing party after the verdict so that only remedy is completely new trial
No Seventh Amendment right [to cure any defects] is ambushed.” Ross v. Rhodes Furniture, Inc, 146 F.3d 1286, 1289 (11th Cir.1998) (quoting Nat’l Indus., Inc, 781 F.2d at 1549).
green
77 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 388, 73 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,474, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1622, 11 Fla. L. Wee… (1998)
National Indus., Inc. v. Sharon Steel Corp., 781 F.2d at 1549-50.
green
Ross v. Rhodes Furniture Inc. (1998)
National Indus., Inc. v. Sharon Steel Corp., 781 F.2d at 1549-50.
green
Ross v. Rhodes Furniture, Inc. (1998)
National Indus., Inc. v. Sharon Steel Corp., 781 F.2d at 1549-50.
green
Rankin v. Evans (1998)
National Indus., 781 F.2d at 1549.
green
Rankin v. Evans (1998)
National Indus., 781 F.2d at 1549.
Ideal Steel argues that this court has adopted a “flexible” view of Rule 50(b) 11 in the past, see National Industries, Inc. v. Sharon Steel Corp., 781 F.2d 1545, 1549 (11th Cir.1986), and that the peculiar facts of this case fit within this flexible analysis. 12 The cases adopting a flexible approach look not to the specific wording of Rule 50(b) but toward its purpose.
green
Clark v. Tucson, City of (2020)
“Absent such 18 a liberal interpretation, ‘the rule is a harsh one.’” E.E.O.C. v. Go Daddy Software, Inc., 581 19 F.3d 951 , 961 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Nat’l Indus., Inc.., 781 F.2d at 1549. 20 At trial, Defendant orally moved for JMOL and stated the following: 21 We’ll make our Rule 50 motion.
green
Clark v. Esser (1995)
The court further stated that “[e]ven if the subject matters of the two motions were much farther apart, we would not read Rule 50(b) so narrowly as [the opposing party] urges us to do.” 781 F.2d at 1549.
See Nat’l Indus., Inc. v. Sharon Steel Corp., 781 F.2d 1545 , 1548 (11th Cir. 1986) (“Florida law does not require exactitude where it is certain that substantial damage has been caused; a reasonable basis in the evidence for the computation will suffice.”); Royal Typewriter Co. v. Xenographic Supplies Corp., 719 F.2d 1092, 1105 (11th Cir. 1983) (“[The plaintiff] need not show 6 UHC relies on two cases—Hapeville Dialysis Center v. City of Atlanta, Ga., 545 F. App’x 870 (11th…
“Florida law does not require exactitude where it is certain that substantial damage has been caused; a reasonable basis in the evidence for the computation will suffice.”
Ross v. Rhodes Furniture, Inc., 146 F.3d 1286, 1289 (11th Cir. 1998) (citing Nat'l Indus., Inc., 781 F.2d at 1549-50).
green
Angela Ruckh v. Salus Rehabilitation, LLC (2020)
See id. (citing Nat’l Indus., Inc. v. Sharon Steel Corp., 781 F.2d 1545 (11th Cir. 1986)).
green
Electro Services, Inc. v. Exide Corporation (1988)
Generally, “[p]roof of the income and of the expenses of the business for a reasonable time anterior to the interruption charged, or facts of equivalent import, is usually required.” New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Utility Battery Manufacturing Co., 122 Fla. 718 , 166 So. 856, 860 (1936); see National Industries v. Sharon Steel Corp., 781 F.2d 1545 , 1547 (11th Cir.1986).
green
Smith v. City of Oakland (2008)
See Reply at 2 (“[T]he [Cjourt and [Plaintiffs had notice of the gist of the argument.”); see also National Industries, Inc. v. Sharon Steel Corp., 781 F.2d 1545, 1549-50 (11th Cir.1986) (noting that where Rule 50(b)’s purpose — providing notice to the court and opposing counsel of any deficiencies in the opposing party’s case prior to sending it to the jury— has been met, the Eleventh Circuit “has taken a liberal view of what constitutes a motion for directed verdict”).