Charlie E. May v. Ellis Trucking Co., Inc.

Sixth Circuit

Charlie E. May v. Ellis Trucking Co., Inc.

243 F.2d 526, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 2953

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMarch 6, 1957

Docket12974

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 243 F.2d 526 (Charlie E. May v. Ellis Trucking Co., Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Charlie E. May v. Ellis Trucking Co., Inc., 243 F.2d 526, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 2953 (6th Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In a suit for personal injuries arising from an automobile accident, appellant was awarded a jury verdict of $42,-500. On motion for a new trial, the-district court entered judgment for $25,-000 without obtaining the consent of appellant, concluding that in view of the testimony on the extent of injury the-“verdict was so excessive as to shock the conscience of the Court.” There-is no question under these circumstances-that the trial judge had the discretionary power to order a new trial, but the district court committed error by reducing the verdict without giving appellant the-option of either accepting a remittitur or of having a new trial. Kennon v. Gilmer, 1889, 131 U.S. 22, 27-30, 9 S.Ct. 696, 33 L.Ed. 110; Dimick v. *527 Schiedt, 1935, 293 U.S. 474, 482-485, 55 S.Ct. 296, 79 L.Ed. 603.

Upon remand the district court will have the power either to grant or deny a new trial generally or to deny a new trial on the condition that appellant accept a judgment for a lesser amount than the jury verdict.

The judgment is set aside and the case is remanded to the district court for reconsideration of the motion for a new trial.

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

PER CURIAM.

In a suit for personal injuries arising from an automobile accident, appellant was awarded a jury verdict of $42,-500. On motion for a new trial, the-district court entered judgment for $25,-000 without obtaining the consent of appellant, concluding that in view of the testimony on the extent of injury the-“verdict was so excessive as to shock the conscience of the Court.” There-is no question under these circumstances-that the trial judge had the discretionary power to order a new trial, but the district court committed error by reducing the verdict without giving appellant the-option of either accepting a remittitur or of having a new trial. Kennon v. Gilmer, 1889, 131 U.S. 22, 27-30, 9 S.Ct. 696, 33 L.Ed. 110; Dimick v. *527 Schiedt, 1935, 293 U.S. 474, 482-485, 55 S.Ct. 296, 79 L.Ed. 603.

Upon remand the district court will have the power either to grant or deny a new trial generally or to deny a new trial on the condition that appellant accept a judgment for a lesser amount than the jury verdict.

The judgment is set aside and the case is remanded to the district court for reconsideration of the motion for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 F.2d 526, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 2953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charlie-e-may-v-ellis-trucking-co-inc-ca6-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack