TURNER

v.

CALIFORNIA

Citator

Cited By

• FOX v. Dannenberg, 906 F.2d 1253 (8th Cir. 1990)
  …way to adequately make an offer of proof. It is also sufficient for counsel to “state with specificity what he or she anticipates will be the witness’ testi-mony_” Strong v. Mercantile Trust Co., 816 F. 2d 429, 432 n. 4 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1030, 108 S.Ct. 759, 98 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988). That was accomplished in this case. Thus, we may review this issue. The question of whether expert testimony should be admitted or excluded is a matter governed by federal, rather than state, law. See Warner v…
• LEE v. Rapid City Area Sch. Dist. NO. 51-4, 981 F.2d 316 (8th Cir. 1992)
  …(8th Cir.1988). As explained in point 6 below, this is not a case where the testimony summarized in the offer of proof would add nothing to what was admitted, as in Strong v. Mercantile Trust Co., 816 F. 2d 429, 431-32 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1030, 108 S.Ct. 759, 98 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988). Nor is it a case where the offer of proof failed to alert the district court to the nature of the evidence sought to be admitted, as in Royal v. Missouri Highway & Transp. Comm’n, 714 F. 2d 867, 869 (8th Cir.19…

  ← 1 / 3 →
• Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 922 F.2d 1357 (8th Cir. 1990)
  …ion will, however, only constitute reversible error if it affects a substantial right of the party challenging the ruling. Fed.R.Evid. 103(a); Fed.R.Civ.P. 61; Strong v. Mercantile Trust Co., 816 F. 2d 429, 432 (8th Cir.1987) (Strong), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1030, 108 S.Ct. 759, 98 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988); Hogan, 812 F. 2d at 410, 412. In addition, a litigant has not preserved for appellate review a challenge to a ruling excluding evidence unless the substance of the evidence was made known to the trial court by…