Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#DocketEntry/almd;;2:16-cv-00003_de152> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 6 of
6
with 100 items per page.
- almd;;2:16-cv-00003_de152 RegisterActionDate "2018-11-01" @default.
- almd;;2:16-cv-00003_de152 RegisterActionDescriptionText "JUDGMENT ISSUED AS MANDATE 11/01/2018 of USCA as to 102 Notice of Appeal filed by F511FBD, 11th Circuit Appeal No. 17-14609-CC; Neither was it error for the district court to instruct the jury that anything the lawyers say is not evidence and isnt binding on you. This instruction isroutinely given, and it accurately states the law. These lawyers were not witnesses to what happened and were therefore incompetent to testify. See Fed. R. Evid.602. More to the point, it is not clear why this instruction would have caused the jury to disregard McDowells closing arguments on causation. Therefore, the district court did not commit reversible error in refusing to give McDowells instruction or in denying his motion for a new trial. See Conroy, 375 F.3d at 1235(concluding that the plaintiff, who requested an accurate instruction on pretext, suffered no prejudice by the district courts refusal to give the requested instruction where counsel argued pretext to the jury, and the courts charge adequately covered the requested instruction); Gowski, 682 F.3d at 1310, 131415. AFFIRMED. See USCA 140 Per Curiam Opinion entered 10/03/2018. Before MARCUS, MARTIN, and HULL, Circuit Judges. (ydw, ) (Entered: 11/01/2018)" @default.
- almd;;2:16-cv-00003_de152 AdministrativeID "141" @default.
- almd;;2:16-cv-00003_de152 OntologyLabel judgment @default.
- almd;;2:16-cv-00003_de152 hasReferenceToOtherEntry almd;;2:16-cv-00003_de110 @default.
- almd;;2:16-cv-00003_de152 hasReferenceToOtherEntry almd;;2:16-cv-00003_de151 @default.