favor had the jury been instructed as requested. Cf. Maiz, 253 F.3d at 661 n. 14 (indicating an “in-clin[ation] to agree with Plaintiffs’ arguments [about prejudice,]” but declining to reach that issue “as there was no error in the district court’s refusal to instruct the jury in accordance with Defendants’ wishes”); Broaddus v. Florida Power Corp., 145 F.3d 1283, 1288 (11th Cir.1998) (“[W]e find that the court’s supplemental instruction, to which FPC objected, misstated the law according to Hazen Paper, and caused prejudicial harm to FPC by allowing the jury to believe that it could consider the medical evidence as evidence of age discrimination under the ADEA.”); Broaddus, 145 F.3d at 1288 (quoting Mosher v. Speedstar Div. of AMCA Intern., Inc., 979 F.2d 823, 827 (11th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>)). 4. Mr. King’s Closing Statement CVS
holding that trial courts jury charge did not amount to reversible error given that plaintiff failed to show she was prejudiced by inapplicable portion of trial courts charge holding that a jury is presumed to follow the trial courts instructions holding that it is presumed that the jury obeyed the trial courts instructions holding that the ninth circuit erred because the state appellate courts conclusion that one incorrect statement in jury instructions did not render the instructions likely to mislead the jury was not unreasonable holding that where the courts instructions caused a jury to consider erroneous criterion of liability plaintiff was prejudiced and new trial was warranted