DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

v.

ZAPATA ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Elkins, 885 F.2d 775 (11th Cir. 1989)
  …ert. denied, 469 U.S. 1111, 105 S.Ct. 791, 83 L.Ed.2d 785 (1985). Testimony based on hearsay is inadmissible as a general rule, whether offered by an expert or by a lay person. United States v. Cox, 696 F. 2d 1294, 1296-97 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 827, 104 S.Ct. 99, 78 L.Ed.2d 104 (1983). Fed.R.Evid. 702 allows an individual to be qualified as an expert based on knowledge, experience, and education, and an expert can testify based on his knowledge and experience. Fed.R.Evid. 703; see United State…
• United States v. Broxton, 926 F.2d 1180 (D.C. Cir. 1991)
  …g., United States v. Patrick, 494 F. 2d 1150, 1153 (D.C.Cir.1974). Hence, the jury is not to consider the potential punishment which could result from a conviction. See, e.g., United States v. Cox, 696 F. 2d 1294, 1298 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 827, 104 S.Ct. 99, 78 L.Ed.2d 104 (1984). Accordingly, the district court committed no error in refusing to inform the jury about the mandatory minimum sentence. See United States v. Goodface, 835 F. 2d 1233, 1237 (8th Cir.1987); Chapman v. United State…
• General Truck Drivers v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 934 F.2d 732 (6th Cir. 1991)
  …or” is unpersuasive. The distributor performs its only useful function on-site by spraying liquid asphalt onto the road surface as a bonding agent. The case of Joint Council of Teamsters, No. 42 v. NLRB, 702 F. 2d 168 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 827, 104 S.Ct. 100, 78 L.Ed.2d 105 (1983),2 is persuasive authority for enforcing the Board’s order in this case, despite General Drivers’ contentions to the contrary. In Joint Council, a master labor agreement between unions and members of the Californ…

  ← 1 / 2 →