Home/District of Columbia/Fitzgerald v. Dodson

Fitzgerald v. Dodson

26 F.2d 522, 58 App. D.C. 150, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3703
CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedApril 28, 1928
DocketNos. 1372, 1373
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 26 F.2d 522 (Fitzgerald v. Dodson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 F.2d 522, 58 App. D.C. 150, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitzgerald-v-dodson-dcd-1928.