Kelly v. Silbough

California Court of Appeal

Kelly v. Silbough

22 P.2d 757, 132 Cal. App. 467, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 359

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 7, 1933

DocketDocket No. 8979.

StatusPublished

This text of 22 P.2d 757 (Kelly v. Silbough) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kelly v. Silbough, 22 P.2d 757, 132 Cal. App. 467, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 359 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

CONREY, P. J.

Proceeding under Rule V, section 3, of Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal rules, respondent moves for dismissal of appeal or affirmance of judgment.

The sole ground of appeal as presented by appellant is found in his contention that the amount of damages awarded is so excessive, and so disproportionate to the injuries received, as to raise a presumption that the verdict was influenced by passion and prejudice “rather than honest and sober judgment”.

Neither the quotations from the evidence as found in appellant’s brief, nor the evidence contained in the supplement to that brief, nor both together, are sufficient to justify appellant’s claims in relation to the point stated. While the amount of the verdict ($7,660) may seem to be a very *468 liberal compensation, there is no doubt that the plaintiff has suffered very serious injuries and disabilities which are traceable to the accident and are legally sufficient to sustain the verdict. This being so, we think that respondent should not have imposed upon her the burden of further argument, mor should the court be required to give further time to the case The motion is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

Houser, J., and York, J., concurred.

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

CONREY, P. J.

Proceeding under Rule V, section 3, of Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal rules, respondent moves for dismissal of appeal or affirmance of judgment.

The sole ground of appeal as presented by appellant is found in his contention that the amount of damages awarded is so excessive, and so disproportionate to the injuries received, as to raise a presumption that the verdict was influenced by passion and prejudice “rather than honest and sober judgment”.

Neither the quotations from the evidence as found in appellant’s brief, nor the evidence contained in the supplement to that brief, nor both together, are sufficient to justify appellant’s claims in relation to the point stated. While the amount of the verdict ($7,660) may seem to be a very *468 liberal compensation, there is no doubt that the plaintiff has suffered very serious injuries and disabilities which are traceable to the accident and are legally sufficient to sustain the verdict. This being so, we think that respondent should not have imposed upon her the burden of further argument, mor should the court be required to give further time to the case The motion is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

Houser, J., and York, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 P.2d 757, 132 Cal. App. 467, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-v-silbough-calctapp-1933.