D'AMARIO

v.

PROVIDENCE CIVIC CENTER AUTHORITY ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (U.S. 2020)
  …Sess., § 2(d) (as introduced in the House on Mar. 13, 1991); S. 574, 102d Cong., 1st Sess., § 5 (as introduced in the Senate on Mar. 6, 1991). See Williamson v. A. G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. , 876 F. 2d 69, 70 (CA8 1989) (per curiam ), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1089, 110 S.Ct. 1158, 107 L.Ed.2d 1061 (1990) ; DeSantis v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. , 608 F. 2d 327, 329-330 (CA9 1979) ; Blum v. Gulf Oil Corp. , 597 F. 2d 936, 938 (CA5 1979) (per curiam ). Ruth v. Children's Med. Ctr. , 1991 WL 151158, *5 (CA6, Aug…
• Lashley v. Armontrout, 957 F.2d 1495 (8th Cir. 1992)
  …omitted). “A denial of due process occurs when the error is ‘gross, conspicuously prejudicial or of such import that the trial was [*1500] fatally infected.’ ” Redding v. Minnesota, 881 F. 2d 575, 579 (8th Cir.1989) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1089, 110 S.Ct. 1158, 107 L.Ed.2d 1061 (1990). In this case, we agree with the district court that “[w]hether [Lashley] struck his victim with a skillet ... or struck her with a hammer ... does not at all change the character and nature of his act.” Th…
• McCAFFERTY v. Leapley, 944 F.2d 445 (8th Cir. 1991)
  …t. 280, 290, 86 L.Ed. 166 (1941). More than a finding of trial error or even of plain error is required to justify habeas relief on the basis of an evidentiary ruling. Redding v. State of Minnesota, 881 F. 2d 575, 579 (8th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1089, 110 S.Ct. 1158, 107 L.Ed.2d 1061 (1990). An evidentiary error violates a defendant’s due process rights only when the error complained of is so gross, conspicuously prejudicial, or otherwise of such magnitude that it fatally infects the trial. Id…