Fitzgerald v. Dodson

26 F.2d 522, 58 App. D.C. 150, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3703
District Court, District of Columbia·Decided April 28, 1928·No. Nos. 1372, 1373·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

ROBB, Associate Justice.

In these eases the application for writs of error is based on the refusal of the trial court to grant a new trial.

It is settled law in this court that the action of the trial court in granting or refusing a new trial is not reviewable. Columbia Ry. Co. v. Cruit, 20 App. D. C. 521; Price v. United States, 14 App. D. C. 391; Kelly v. Moore, 22 App. D. C. 9. Even where the motion for a new trial is based upon newly discovered evidence, the action of the trial court will not be disturbed, unless there has been a manifest abuse of discretion. Mandes v. Midgett, 49 App. D. C. 139, 261 F. 1019.

It results that these applications must be denied.

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

Fitzgerald v. Dodson, 26 F.2d 522, 58 App. D.C. 150, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3703 (D.D.C. 1928).

26 F.2d 522 (Fitzgerald v. Dodson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Imhoff v. Walker
51 A.2d 309 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1947)
Hamilton v. United States
140 F.2d 679 (D.C. Circuit, 1944)
United States Ex Rel. Filomio v. Powell
38 F. Supp. 183 (D. New Jersey, 1941)
District Nat. Bank v. Maiatico
60 F.2d 1078 (D.C. Circuit, 1932)
Concrete Oil Tank Co. v. Menefee
57 F.2d 429 (D.C. Circuit, 1932)
Kenyon v. Youngman
40 F.2d 812 (District of Columbia, 1930)