SIRCY

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Brownlow v. Aman, 740 F.2d 1476 (10th Cir. 1984)
  …designates witnesses and their proposed testimony and serves as a procedural tool to insure an efficient trial on the merits without chance or surprise. Fed.R.Civ.P. rule 16; Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 626 F. 2d 784, 795 (10th Cir.1980), cert, denied, 450 U.S. 918, 101 S.Ct. 1363, 67 L.Ed.2d 344 (1981). “It is prejudicial error for a trial court to give instructions which find no support in the evidence unless the record shows the error [to be] harmless.” Kirschner v. Broadhead, 671 F. 2d 1034, 1040 (7th Cir.…
• In re Thalheim, 853 F.2d 383 (5th Cir. 1988)
  …e author of the rule has misinterpreted it.... Accordingly, considerable deference is accorded to the district court’s interpretation and application of its own rule” (citing Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 626 F. 2d 784, 796 (10th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 918, 101 S.Ct. 1363, 67 L.Ed.2d 344 (1981)). The panel majority, to the contrary, does not appear to acknowledge any rule of deference to the district judges who wrote the rule. In its discussion of the appropriate standard of review, the court rejects…
• Greenwood v. McDONOUGH Power Equip., Inc., 731 F.2d 690 (10th Cir. 1984)
  …o the condition of the machine when it left the manufacturer. Under the circumstances, the failure to exclude the evidence as the sole remedy was not an abuse of discretion. While Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 626 F. 2d 784 (10th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 918, 101 S.Ct. 1363, 67 L.Ed.2d 344 (1981), is similar, it is not so close as to be controlling. The shift in subject matter, as opposed to detail, is the factor which distinguished that case from this case. None of the other issues raised on appeal is…

  ← 1 / 2 →