Claire E. White v. The Gorham Corporation

Fourth Circuit

Claire E. White v. The Gorham Corporation

376 F.2d 600, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6464

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 8, 1967

Docket11178

StatusPublished

This text of 376 F.2d 600 (Claire E. White v. The Gorham Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Claire E. White v. The Gorham Corporation, 376 F.2d 600, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6464 (4th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

A jury found in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant upon her claim of personal injuries sustained through defendant’s alleged negligence and fixed her damages at an amount obviously determined by the jury as reasonable. The plaintiff moved the district court to set aside the jury verdict and grant a new trial solely on the issue of damages, asserting inadequacy of the verdict. The motion was denied and judgment was entered on the verdict. We are not persuaded that the amount of the verdict was inadequate or that resubmission of the issue of damages to a jury was required. We find no abuse of discretion by the court below in denying the motion for a new trial.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

A jury found in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant upon her claim of personal injuries sustained through defendant’s alleged negligence and fixed her damages at an amount obviously determined by the jury as reasonable. The plaintiff moved the district court to set aside the jury verdict and grant a new trial solely on the issue of damages, asserting inadequacy of the verdict. The motion was denied and judgment was entered on the verdict. We are not persuaded that the amount of the verdict was inadequate or that resubmission of the issue of damages to a jury was required. We find no abuse of discretion by the court below in denying the motion for a new trial.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

376 F.2d 600, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claire-e-white-v-the-gorham-corporation-ca4-1967.