UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
CHARLES GATES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
PER CURIAM: In this case we vacated the order of the district court denying Gates’ motion for a new trial and remanded for a hearing on that motion. U.S. v. Gates, 10 F. 3d 765 (11th Cir.1993).
In all other respects the judgment of the district court was affirmed. - Gates has moved for rehearing on the sole issue of whether the court erred in refusing to permit the testimony of two expert witnesses: one expert to testify concerning the credibility of eye witness testimony and another to testify on whether a photo array shown to witnesses was unduly suggestive. The petition for rehearing must be granted. On remand the district court must reexamine the admissibility of the testimony of each of the experts in the light of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993).
See also U.S. v. Rincon, 11 F. 3d 922 (9th Cir.1993), U.S. v. Amador-Galvan, 9 F. 3d 1414 (9th Cir.1993), and Jones v. Arkansas, 314 Ark. 289, 862 S.W. 2d 242 (1993).
In complying with this mandate the district court may hold such hearings as it deems appropriate and shall enter an appropriate order affirming its rulings on the admissibility of the expert testimony or taking such further action as is appropriate. A new appeal may be taken by either party from order(s) entered by the district court on remand. In all respects other than the matter that our previous opinion directed be vacated and remanded and the remand ordered by the present opinion, the judgment, of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (122 total)
-
City OF Lauderhill v. Rhames, 864 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…when a plaintiff challenges the validity of a legislative act.” Id. (emphasis in original). Legislative acts generally apply to large segments of society; “laws and broad-ranging executive regulations are the most common examples.” McKinney v. Pate, 20 F. 3d 1550, 1557 n. 9 (11th Cir.1994) (en banc).6 If it does not involve a fundamental right, a substantive due process challenge to a legislative act is reviewed under a rational basis test. See TRM, Inc. v. United States, 52 F. 3d 941, 945 (11th Cir.1995).…
-
Crocker v. Pleasant, 778 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 2001)…106 S.Ct. 662, [*983] 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986)). In this category, courts have consistently required that in order to constitute a violation of substantive due process, the right must be “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” McKinney v. Pate, 20 F. 3d 1550, 1556 (11th Cir.1994). A violation of substantive due process can also arise where the governmental action “shocks the conscience.” Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 172, 72 S.Ct. 205, 96 L.Ed. 183 (1952). “As a general matter, the [U.S. Supreme…
-
Jacobi v. City OF Miami Beach, 678 So. 2d 1365 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…641 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), rev. denied, 651 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1995), and cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 2583, 132 L.Ed.2d 832 (1995). The federal substantive due process violation claim is also without merit. We follow McKinney v. Pate, 20 F. 3d 1550 (11th Cir.1994) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 898, 130 L.Ed.2d 783 (1995) 1 [*1367] and its progeny, and hold that substantive due process rights do not protect the property owners from an executive decision that wrongfully denies a z…
Previewing 3 of 122 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Daubert et ux. v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993)
- United States v. Gates, 10 F.3d 765 (11th Cir. 1993)