The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Camp, 60 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 1995):
4 Oatman argues that because a motion in limine had been previously ruled on, he was not required to object to preserve the issue for appeal. The rule, however, is that if the trial court permits the evidence, then "no further action is required to preserve for appeal the issue of admissibility of that evidence." United States v. Wood, 943 F.2d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 1991)(quotations omitted). Here, the court granted the motion in limine and ruled that the evidence was inadmissible.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.