Frank J. Moore v. William Charles Swenfurth

Third Circuit

Frank J. Moore v. William Charles Swenfurth

368 F.2d 317

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedOctober 31, 1966

Docket15963

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 368 F.2d 317 (Frank J. Moore v. William Charles Swenfurth) 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

Frank J. Moore v. William Charles Swenfurth, 368 F.2d 317 (3d Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

In this action seeking damages for injuries resulting from an automobile accident the jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff for $10,000.00 on which judgment was entered in his favor. Asserting that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and inadequate the plaintiff moved for a new trial on the question of damages alone. The district court denied the motion and the plaintiff appealed.

We have examined the record in the light of the plaintiff’s contentions. The trial errors which the plaintiff alleges are so lacking in merit as to border on the frivolous. So far as concerns the plaintiff’s contention that the amount of the verdict is inadequate and against the weight of the evidence it is sufficient to say that the district court in the exercise of the discretion which the law commits to it in this regard overruled this contention and was certainly not guilty of an abuse of discretion in doing so. Beyond determining this question our reviewing authority does not extend. Lebeck v. William A. Jarvis, Inc., 3 Cir. 1957, 250 F.2d 285, 288.

The judgment and order of the district court will be affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

In this action seeking damages for injuries resulting from an automobile accident the jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff for $10,000.00 on which judgment was entered in his favor. Asserting that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and inadequate the plaintiff moved for a new trial on the question of damages alone. The district court denied the motion and the plaintiff appealed.

We have examined the record in the light of the plaintiff’s contentions. The trial errors which the plaintiff alleges are so lacking in merit as to border on the frivolous. So far as concerns the plaintiff’s contention that the amount of the verdict is inadequate and against the weight of the evidence it is sufficient to say that the district court in the exercise of the discretion which the law commits to it in this regard overruled this contention and was certainly not guilty of an abuse of discretion in doing so. Beyond determining this question our reviewing authority does not extend. Lebeck v. William A. Jarvis, Inc., 3 Cir. 1957, 250 F.2d 285, 288.

The judgment and order of the district court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

368 F.2d 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-j-moore-v-william-charles-swenfurth-ca3-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack