Boothby v. Dudley

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Boothby v. Dudley

556 A.2d 655, 1989 Me. LEXIS 75

DecidedApril 6, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 556 A.2d 655 (Boothby v. Dudley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boothby v. Dudley, 556 A.2d 655, 1989 Me. LEXIS 75 (Me. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Plaintiff Mark Boothby appeals from an order of the Superior Court (Cumberland County; Cole, J.) denying his motion for a new trial. On this record the jury rationally could find that the plaintiff’s negligence was equal to or greater than that of the defendant; the court properly held there was no error in the bifurcated trial or in the closing argument of the defendant. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Werner v. Lane, 393 A.2d 1329, 1332 (Me.1978).

[656]*656The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Plaintiff Mark Boothby appeals from an order of the Superior Court (Cumberland County; Cole, J.) denying his motion for a new trial. On this record the jury rationally could find that the plaintiff’s negligence was equal to or greater than that of the defendant; the court properly held there was no error in the bifurcated trial or in the closing argument of the defendant. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Werner v. Lane, 393 A.2d 1329, 1332 (Me.1978).

[656]*656The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

556 A.2d 655, 1989 Me. LEXIS 75, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boothby-v-dudley-me-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack