A motion in limine is a pretrial request made by a party in a legal case, seeking to prevent the introduction of specific evidence or testimony that may be prejudicial, irrelevant, or otherwise inadmissible. This motion aims to address evidentiary concerns before the trial begins, avoiding potential disruptions during the proceedings and ensuring a fair trial. Grasping the motion in limine is vital for understanding the nuances of trial preparation and the strategies employed by attorneys to shape the narrative presented to the jury. (Motion in Limine, Black's Law Dictionary, 11th ed. 2019, available at Westlaw.)
“Typically, a party makes this motion when it believes that mere mention of the evidence during trial would be highly prejudicial and could not be remedied by an instruction to disregard. If, after the motion is granted, the opposing party mentions or attempts to offer the evidence in the jury's presence, a mistrial may be ordered.” (Id.)
The Arkansas Supreme Court has stated that “motions in limine are to enlighten the court and advise counsel of the specific nature of the anticipated evidence so that the court may intelligently act on such motions.” (Benson v. Shuler Drilling Co. (1994) 316 Ark. 101…)
“A motion in limine may be used to exclude evidence that is not properly disclosed under Rule 26.1, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure (Ariz.R.Civ.P.).” (See Zimmerman v. Shakman (2003) 204 Ariz. 231…)
Under California Evidence Code § 352, the court has discretion to exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will…
It is well settled that “the denial of a motion in limine directed toward a broad array of evidence does not dispense with the obligation to make a contemporaneous objection to the evidence when offered at trial.” (See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Goddard (2021) 484 P.3d 765…)
"The decision to preclude a party from introducing expert testimony is within the discretion of the trial court.” (Amsden v. Fischer (2001) 62 Conn. App. 323, 325-26 citing…)
“[T]he trial court has broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility ... of evidence.... [The reviewing Court] will make every reasonable presumption in favor of upholding the trial court's ruling, and…”
“In order for evidence to be admissible, it has to be relevant. Relevant evidence is evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” (See Reading In. v. Equip. Leasing Assoc., C.A. No. 02C-10-223 SCD…)
Under Florida Stat. § 90.403, relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury…
In Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Supreme Court held that “[if] the denial of a motion in limine is harmless when the evidence is not offered at trial, logic compels the conclusion that the grant of a motion in limine is harmless when the evidence is admitted at trial.” (Panos v. Dept. of Transportation (1982) 162 Ga. App. 53,…)
“When a motion in limine is granted, the key to saving for review an error in the exclusion of evidence is an adequate offer of proof in the trial court.” (Snelson v. Kamm (2003) 204 Ill. 2d 1…)
“The purpose of a motion in limine is to prevent the mention of prejudicial material to the jury prior to the trial court making a final ruling on its admissibility at trial.” (See Ind. State Police v. The Estate of Damore (2022) 194 N.E.3d 1147…)
“The decision to exclude expert testimony rests in the broad discretion of the judge and will not be disturbed unless the exercise of that discretion constitutes…”
“Evidence is not inadmissible simply because it is prejudicial. Clearly, in every case, each party attempts to introduce evidence that causes prejudice to the other party.” (Fremont Ins. Co., supra, id., citing Waknin v Chamberlain (2002) 467 Mich 329…)
It is also well settled that “the motion in limine is a departure from the traditional practice of ruling on challenges to the admissibility of evidence at the time it is offered. Pretrial motions are now encouraged and governed by specific rules that require notice and briefing, which provide the district court more opportunity to reflectively consider them.” (See Cnty. of Hennepin v. Bhakta (2019) 922 N.W.2d 194…)
“In limine is defined as in or at the beginning and a motion in limine is traditionally used as a way of excluding the admission of testimony or evidence at the beginning of litigation.” (See In re Jones (2013) 420 S.W.3d 605…)
“A party objecting to an order granting or denying a motion in limine, in order to preserve the evidentiary issue for appeal, is required to object to the evidence at the time it is offered at the trial (where the motion was denied) or attempt to introduce the evidence at the trial (where the motion was granted).” (See Xiong v. Marks (2008) 193 N.C. App. 644…)
“A motion in limine seeking an evidentiary ruling must be decided without the benefit of evaluating the evidence in the context of trial.” (See Haider v. Moen (2018) 914 N.W.2d 520…)
“A motion in limine is a pretrial request that certain inadmissible evidence not be referred to or offered at trial.” (See Cho v. Trinitas Reg'l Med. Ctr. (2015) 443 N.J. Super 461…)
“Thus, it is anticipated that, as a general rule, a motion in limine will not have a dispositive impact on a litigant's entire case.” (See Seoung Ouk Cho v. Trinitas Reg'l Med. Ctr. (2015) 443 N.J. Super. 461…)
“[M]otions in limine seeking advance rulings on the admissibility of evidence are fraught with problems because they are necessarily based upon an alleged set of facts rather than the actual testimony which the trial court would have before it at trial in order to make its ruling.” (Kysar v. BP America Prod. Co. (2012) 273 P.3d 867…)
“An attorney's violation of an order in limine can amount to misconduct justifying a new trial under NRCP 59(a)(2) if the standards established by Lioce v. Cohen are met.” (Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v. Roth (2011) 252 P.3d 649 citing Lioce v. Cohen (2008) 124 Nev. 1, 174 P.3d 970.)
Under New York CPLR § 4011, the court may determine the sequence in which the issues shall be tried and otherwise regulate the conduct of the trial in order to achieve a speedy and unprejudiced disposition of the matters at issue…
“A motion in limine is commonly used as a tentative, precautionary request to limit inquiry into a specific area until its admissibility is determined during trial.” (Gable v. Village of Gates Mills (2004) 103 Ohio St. 3d 449…)
“Trial court decisions concerning admission of evidence are reviewed on appeal pursuant to an abuse of discretion standard.” (See Chesapeake Operating Inc. v. Kast Trust Farms (2013) 352 P.3d 1231…)
It is well settled that “OEC 403 provides that relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” (See Buckel v. Nunn (1998) 152 Or. App. 664…)
“Evidence is relevant if it has ‘any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.’” (Crespo v. Hughes (2017) 167 A.3d 168, 179 citing Pa.R.E. 401.)
It is well settled that pursuant to Rule 104 “A trial justice should liberally grant a motion in limine to conduct a preliminary hearing once the moving party has provided a sufficient offer of proof bringing into question the reliability of the expert at hand. Early pretrial Rule 104(a) hearings with serious consideration of the motion in limine benefits everyone: the judge, the jury, the lawyers, the parties, everyone.”(See Santos v. Fischer, 97-0162 (2003), C.A. No. PC97-0162, at *1 (R.I. Super. Aug. 27, 2003).)
Under Tex.R.Civ.P. 193.6, a party may motion the court to exclude reference to material and information not timely produced during the discovery process, as a sanction for the opposing party's failure to comply.
"No formal provision is made for motions in limine in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the Rules, or elsewhere.” (Harnett v. State (2000) 38 S.W.3d 650, 655.) “The lack of an accepted definition renders difficult the determination of the effectiveness of motions in limine in…
“The whole reason for a motion in limine is to resolve disputed evidentiary issues before trial.” (See Billings v. Billings, SR (2011) Vt. 116.)
It is well settled that “ER 403 permits the court to exclude relevant evidence where unduly prejudicial.” (See King v. Olympic Pipe Line (2000) 104 Wn. App. 338…)
“The purpose of [a] motion in limine is to obtain an advance ruling on admissibility of certain evidence.” (See Calewarts v. CR Meyer & Sons Co. (2015) 862 N.W.2d 902.)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
