Common motions in limine examples include requests to exclude evidence of a party’s wealth, religious beliefs, prior bad acts or convictions, unreliable expert testimony, hearsay statements, liability insurance, settlement offers, and post-accident repairs. A motion in limine is a pretrial request asking the judge to rule, in advance, that specific evidence cannot be shown or mentioned at trial. The Latin phrase means “at the threshold,” and that is exactly the point: keep the jury from ever hearing material that could unfairly tilt their thinking before anyone can object in front of them.
The examples below are grouped by the evidence rule that drives them. That grouping matters, because every motion in limine lives or dies on a specific rule and the court’s weighing of what the evidence would actually do in front of a jury.
Unfairly Prejudicial Evidence (Rule 403)
Federal Rule of Evidence 403 is the engine behind a large share of motions in limine. It lets a court exclude relevant evidence when the risk of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its value in proving a fact. The rule targets material that would push jurors toward an emotional or improper basis for their verdict.1Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 403 – Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons
Wealth or Financial Hardship
Attorneys regularly move to block testimony or documents showing that a defendant is extremely wealthy or that a plaintiff is in dire financial straits. A jury that knows a defendant is worth millions may inflate damages based on ability to pay rather than actual harm. A motion in limine keeps that information out so it never enters the calculation.
Religious Beliefs
Federal Rule of Evidence 610 bars evidence of a witness’s religious beliefs when offered to attack or support credibility. A motion in limine enforcing Rule 610 stops an attorney from suggesting a witness is more or less trustworthy because of their faith. The rule does allow inquiry into religious affiliation when it shows bias or interest, such as when a church is itself a party, but that exception is narrow.2Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 610 – Religious Beliefs or Opinions
Lifestyle Choices With No Connection to the Case
Legal personal habits like social drinking or tobacco use are frequent targets when they have no connection to the events at trial. If a car accident case involves no allegation of impairment, questions about the driver’s weekend drinking exist only to make the jury think less of them. That is the “improper basis” Rule 403 was designed to prevent.
Graphic Photographs
Autopsy photos, severe-injury images, and gruesome accident-scene pictures are among the most contested exhibits in personal injury and wrongful death trials. Attorneys argue under Rule 403 that the shock value overwhelms any informational purpose. Gruesomeness alone does not make a photograph inadmissible; the judge weighs whether the image genuinely helps the jury understand the facts against the risk of an emotional reaction that distorts deliberations. Where diagrams or medical testimony can convey the same information, courts are more likely to exclude the photos.
Character Evidence and Prior Bad Acts (Rule 404)
Federal Rule of Evidence 404 blocks one of the most tempting trial tactics: arguing someone is the “type of person” who would commit the act in question. The rule bars using character traits or prior bad acts to show that a person acted consistently with those traits on the occasion at issue.3Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 404 – Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts
Old Driving Records and Unrelated Lawsuits
A classic motion in limine seeks to exclude a defendant’s old speeding tickets in a car accident case. A ticket from three years ago does not prove the driver was speeding on the day of the crash, and letting the jury hear it invites reasoning backward from history rather than evidence. The same logic applies to a plaintiff’s history of filing unrelated lawsuits. Unless those prior cases establish a documented pattern of fraud, courts typically exclude them so the jury does not dismiss the current claim simply because the person has sued before.
The 404(b) Exceptions
Rule 404(b) is not an absolute shield. Evidence of other acts can come in when offered for something other than character, such as motive, intent, preparation, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake. These exceptions generate heavy pretrial litigation. The judge must decide whether the evidence genuinely serves a narrower purpose or is really character evidence in different clothes.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC App Fed R Evid Rule 404 – Character Evidence Not Admissible to Prove Conduct; Exceptions; Other Crimes
Prior Criminal Convictions
Motions in limine often target a witness’s or party’s past convictions. Under Rule 404, convictions cannot be used simply to suggest bad character. Federal Rule of Evidence 609 does permit using certain convictions to challenge credibility, but with limits. Convictions older than ten years face a heightened standard, and for crimes that did not involve dishonesty, the court must find the impeachment value outweighs the prejudicial effect. A motion in limine forces that balancing before trial, rather than letting the conviction slip in front of the jury and then trying to unring the bell.
Unreliable Expert Testimony
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 requires that an expert be qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, and that the testimony rest on sufficient facts, reliable methods, and sound application of those methods. The Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals made trial judges the gatekeepers of expert evidence, charged with screening testimony for reliability before it reaches the jury.5Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Expert Rule 702 – Testimony by Expert Witnesses
Qualifications Don’t Match the Subject
A motion in limine may argue a proposed expert lacks the specific expertise the testimony requires. A general practitioner asked to opine on a complex neurosurgical technique is a mismatch the other side will challenge. The question is whether the witness’s background is close enough to the subject to actually help the jury.
Flawed Methodology
Even a well-credentialed expert can be excluded if the methodology is unreliable. Courts look at whether the method has been tested, whether it has been peer-reviewed, its known error rate, and whether it is generally accepted in the field. An expert who relies on incomplete data, uses a vaguely described analytical process, or leaps from data to conclusion without showing the steps is vulnerable to a Daubert motion. If the court finds the methodology unreliable, the testimony is excluded regardless of credentials.
Missed Disclosure Deadlines
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) requires parties to disclose expert witnesses and, for retained experts, provide a detailed written report at least 90 days before trial. The report must include every opinion, the basis for each, the data considered, and the expert’s qualifications. Missing the deadline or providing an incomplete report opens the door to a motion in limine barring the expert entirely.6Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26 – Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Hearsay and Unauthenticated Evidence
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered at trial to prove the truth of what it asserts. Federal Rule of Evidence 801 defines it, and motions in limine routinely seek to keep it out. A witness testifying that a bystander said the driver “looked distracted” is a textbook example: the bystander is not in the courtroom and cannot be cross-examined, so the jury has no way to assess reliability.7Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 801 – Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay
Business Records
Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) provides an exception for records created in the ordinary course of a regularly conducted business activity. The record must have been made at or near the time of the event by someone with personal knowledge, and the opponent cannot show untrustworthy sources or methods. A motion in limine against business records typically argues the records were prepared for litigation rather than routine business purposes, or that the foundation requirements have not been met. A custodian or qualified witness usually must authenticate the record, though some business records are self-authenticating under Rule 902.8Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 803 – Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay
Authentication Gaps
Federal Rule of Evidence 901 requires that any document, recording, or physical object be shown to be what the proponent claims. A motion in limine on authentication grounds targets evidence with a broken chain of custody or unclear origin. Digital recordings with no testimony about who made them, emails without evidence tying them to the alleged sender, and improperly maintained medical records are all candidates. The proponent does not need to prove authenticity beyond doubt, but must produce enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find the item genuine.9Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 901 – Authenticating or Identifying Evidence
Liability Insurance (Rule 411)
Federal Rule of Evidence 411 prohibits evidence that a party was or was not insured against liability when offered to prove negligence or other wrongdoing. Mentioning a defendant’s large insurance policy invites the jury to inflate damages on the assumption that “the insurance company will pay.” Showing a defendant had no insurance might generate sympathy. A Rule 411 motion keeps both scenarios out.10Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 411 – Liability Insurance
The rule is not absolute. Courts can admit insurance evidence when it serves a different purpose, such as proving a witness’s bias or establishing agency, ownership, or control. An expert employed by the defendant’s insurer may have that affiliation disclosed because it goes to bias, not fault. The motion needs to be precise about which use is being challenged.
Settlement Offers and Negotiations (Rule 408)
Federal Rule of Evidence 408 bars evidence of settlement offers and statements made during compromise negotiations when used to prove or disprove liability or the amount of a claim. If a company offered $25,000 in mediation, the plaintiff cannot tell the jury about that offer to argue the company knew it was at fault. The policy behind the rule is practical: parties would never negotiate openly if every concession could be repeated at trial.11Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 408 – Compromise Offers and Negotiations
Post-Incident Repairs and Fixes (Rule 407)
When a company fixes a hazard after someone is injured, the fix itself is not admissible to prove negligence or a product defect. Federal Rule of Evidence 407 excludes subsequent remedial measures. The reasoning is both practical and policy-driven: if companies knew that repairing a dangerous condition would be used against them, they would leave the hazard in place.12Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 407 – Subsequent Remedial Measures
These motions arise constantly in premises liability and product liability cases. A store that installs anti-slip flooring after a customer falls, or a manufacturer that redesigns a component after a failure, will move to prevent the plaintiff from pointing to the repair as proof that the original condition was dangerous. The court may admit the evidence to prove ownership, control, or feasibility of a precaution, but only if one of those issues is actually disputed.
What a Favorable Ruling Actually Does
A favorable ruling on a motion in limine is not a permanent lockout. The trial court can reconsider, revise, or reverse its ruling as the evidence unfolds and the context at trial shifts away from what the parties described in their pretrial briefs. Federal Rule of Evidence 103 addresses when objections must be renewed to preserve an issue, and prudent attorneys renew objections anyway rather than risk forfeiting the point.13Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 103 – Rulings on Evidence
When a judge does grant a motion in limine, the excluded evidence is off-limits. If an attorney or witness mentions it anyway, consequences range from a curative instruction telling the jury to disregard what they heard, to monetary sanctions, a finding of contempt, or in the worst cases a mistrial. Courts treat mistrial as a last resort, reserved for situations where no lesser remedy can undo the damage, and the violating party may be ordered to pay the costs of retrying the case. That is why experienced trial lawyers prepare their witnesses carefully to stay well clear of any excluded territory.