McCoy v. Cate

First Circuit

McCoy v. Cate

117 F.2d 194, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 4203

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedApril 4, 1941

DocketNo. 3634

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 117 F.2d 194 (McCoy v. Cate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McCoy v. Cate, 117 F.2d 194, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 4203 (1st Cir. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment' for the plaintiff in a personal injury suit. Appellants urge that the verdict of the jury was excessive, and that a- motion for a new trial on this ground was erroneously denied. It does not appear that the trial judge committed any abuse of discretion. The court stated: “The court has given careful consideration to the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses relating to the question of damages and it is our independent judgment that the verdict responds truly to the real merits of the controversy on the evidence submitted, and that the damages awarded are not excessive. There is nothing in the trial of the case that convinces the court that the jury acted in passion or prejudice or that it did not administer substantial justice.” The judgment must be affirmed. Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Deselms, 212 U.S. 159, 181, 29 S.Ct. 270, 53 L.Ed. 453; Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co., 287 U.S. 474, 481, 53 S.Ct. 252, 77 L.Ed. 439; United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Inc., 310 U.S. 150, 247, 60 S.Ct. 811, 84 L.Ed. 1129; Kurn v. Stanfield, 8 Cir., 111 F.2d 469, 474; Teche Lines, Inc., v. Boyette, 5 Cir., 111 F.2d 579, 580; Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Proffitt, 4 Cir., 218 F. 23, 28.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed, with costs to the appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment' for the plaintiff in a personal injury suit. Appellants urge that the verdict of the jury was excessive, and that a- motion for a new trial on this ground was erroneously denied. It does not appear that the trial judge committed any abuse of discretion. The court stated: “The court has given careful consideration to the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses relating to the question of damages and it is our independent judgment that the verdict responds truly to the real merits of the controversy on the evidence submitted, and that the damages awarded are not excessive. There is nothing in the trial of the case that convinces the court that the jury acted in passion or prejudice or that it did not administer substantial justice.” The judgment must be affirmed. Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Deselms, 212 U.S. 159, 181, 29 S.Ct. 270, 53 L.Ed. 453; Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co., 287 U.S. 474, 481, 53 S.Ct. 252, 77 L.Ed. 439; United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Inc., 310 U.S. 150, 247, 60 S.Ct. 811, 84 L.Ed. 1129; Kurn v. Stanfield, 8 Cir., 111 F.2d 469, 474; Teche Lines, Inc., v. Boyette, 5 Cir., 111 F.2d 579, 580; Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Proffitt, 4 Cir., 218 F. 23, 28.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed, with costs to the appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 F.2d 194, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 4203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccoy-v-cate-ca1-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack