Feltman v. Wilding

D.C. Circuit

Feltman v. Wilding

166 F.2d 213

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedOctober 20, 1947

DocketNos. 9491, 9538

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 166 F.2d 213 (Feltman v. Wilding) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Feltman v. Wilding, 166 F.2d 213 (D.C. Cir. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, who were defendants in a personal injury action, contend among other things that the charge to the jury was defective and that the $20,000 verdict was excessive. We find no error either in the charge or elsewhere. It is settled that we cannot review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial on the ground that a verdict was excessive or inadequate. Washington Times Co. v. Bonner, 66 App. D.C. 280, 86 F.2d 836, 110 A.L.R. 393.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, who were defendants in a personal injury action, contend among other things that the charge to the jury was defective and that the $20,000 verdict was excessive. We find no error either in the charge or elsewhere. It is settled that we cannot review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial on the ground that a verdict was excessive or inadequate. Washington Times Co. v. Bonner, 66 App. D.C. 280, 86 F.2d 836, 110 A.L.R. 393.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 F.2d 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feltman-v-wilding-cadc-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack