Conley v. Hildebrant

Third Circuit

Conley v. Hildebrant

88 F.2d 300, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3104

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedFebruary 4, 1937

DocketNo. 6153

StatusPublished

This text of 88 F.2d 300 (Conley v. Hildebrant) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Conley v. Hildebrant, 88 F.2d 300, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3104 (3d Cir. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

In the court below plaintiff recovered a verdict against defendant for damages in an automobile accident caused by the alleged negligence of defendant. After verdict in plaintiff’s favor, the court refused to grant a new trial and entered judgment for plaintiff; whereupon defendant appealed and contends the verdict should have been set aside as excessive.

Refusal of a new trial is a matter of discretion, and no appeal lies unless the judge abused the discretion intrusted to him.

The case before us depends on its own facts, and as no precedent or principle is involved, we refrain from discussing the facts and limit ourselves to saying that in view of all the proofs and circumstances and of all questions involved, which we have duly considered, we are of opinion the court did not abuse the discretionary power vested in it. So holding, the appeal is dismissed.

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

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

In the court below plaintiff recovered a verdict against defendant for damages in an automobile accident caused by the alleged negligence of defendant. After verdict in plaintiff’s favor, the court refused to grant a new trial and entered judgment for plaintiff; whereupon defendant appealed and contends the verdict should have been set aside as excessive.

Refusal of a new trial is a matter of discretion, and no appeal lies unless the judge abused the discretion intrusted to him.

The case before us depends on its own facts, and as no precedent or principle is involved, we refrain from discussing the facts and limit ourselves to saying that in view of all the proofs and circumstances and of all questions involved, which we have duly considered, we are of opinion the court did not abuse the discretionary power vested in it. So holding, the appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 F.2d 300, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conley-v-hildebrant-ca3-1937.