City of Detroit v. Julien
This text of 21 F.2d 830 (City of Detroit v. Julien) 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.
Opinion
Affirmed. Defendant’s motion to direct, made, at the close of plaintiff’s evidence, was waived by putting in proof without renewal of the motion; and, in any event, there was substantial evidence to support the verdict. The doctors’ evidence was, in substance, an expression of expert opinion as to the probability of permanence in the injury. A deduction of an unknown amount on account of pain and suffering must be made from the verdict; and hence no one can say that so much as was compensation for lack of earning power was excessive.
Let the mandate issue forthwith.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
21 F.2d 830, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 2777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-detroit-v-julien-ca6-1927.