State ex rel Union Iron Works v. P. S. Lord Mechanical Contractors

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that invited error occurred when the district court adopted the challenging party’s suggested changes to the court’s proposed jury instructions
• holding that appellants did not show plain USCA11 Case: 22-14335 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 09/05/2023 Page: 17 of 18 22-14335 Opinion of the Court 17 error because “no case law exists clearly” supporting their posi- tion
• explaining that Rule 51 re- quires timely objections “to prevent unnecessary new trials be- cause of errors the judge might have corrected if they had been brought to his attention at the proper time” (quoting Pate v. Sea- board R.R., 819 F.2d 1074, 1082 (11th Cir. 1987))
• requiring a direct \relationship between the commander and the perpetrator of the crime\
• “Where invited error exists, it precludes a court from ‘invoking the plain error rule and reversing.’” (quoting United States v. Davis, 443 F.2d 560, 564–65 (5th Cir. 1971))
• “Where invited error exists, it precludes a court from ‘invoking the plain error rule and reversing.’” (quoting United States v. Davis, 443 F.2d 560, 564–65 (5th Cir. 1971))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).