McDowell Transport v. Kidd

Sixth Circuit

McDowell Transport v. Kidd

188 F.2d 361

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 6, 1951

DocketNos. 11224, 11225

StatusPublished

This text of 188 F.2d 361 (McDowell Transport v. Kidd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McDowell Transport v. Kidd, 188 F.2d 361 (6th Cir. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appeals in these two cases came on to be heard together, and the record, the briefs and the oral arguments have been duly considered: from all of which it appears that the sole assignment of error made by the appellants is that the verdict of the jury for $20,000 damages awarded appellee Gates W. Kidd and the verdict of the jury for $10,000 awarded Helen M. Kidd were so excessive as to evidence passion, prejudice and caprice on the part of the jury, and that the district judge abused his discretion in sustaining the verdicts and entering judgments thereon;

And this court being of opinion that, for the reasons stated in the orders overruling the motions for a new trial made by the respective appellants the district judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motions for new trial;

The judgments entered on the respective verdicts are affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appeals in these two cases came on to be heard together, and the record, the briefs and the oral arguments have been duly considered: from all of which it appears that the sole assignment of error made by the appellants is that the verdict of the jury for $20,000 damages awarded appellee Gates W. Kidd and the verdict of the jury for $10,000 awarded Helen M. Kidd were so excessive as to evidence passion, prejudice and caprice on the part of the jury, and that the district judge abused his discretion in sustaining the verdicts and entering judgments thereon;

And this court being of opinion that, for the reasons stated in the orders overruling the motions for a new trial made by the respective appellants the district judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motions for new trial;

The judgments entered on the respective verdicts are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 F.2d 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdowell-transport-v-kidd-ca6-1951.