Sebring Trucking Co. v. White

Sixth Circuit

Sebring Trucking Co. v. White

187 F.2d 486

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 26, 1951

Docket11121_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 187 F.2d 486 (Sebring Trucking Co. v. White) 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

Sebring Trucking Co. v. White, 187 F.2d 486 (6th Cir. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was heard upon the record, briefs, and argument of counsel ;

And it appearing that appellant’s complaint that the verdict and judgment in favor of appellee in the amount of $27,500.-00 for personal injuries, property damage and medical expenses arising out of a collision between appellant’s automobile and appellee’s tractor-trailer, is excessive, was considered and rejected by the trial judge in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial;

And such ruling by the trial judge being reviewable only for abuse of discretion, and no such abuse being shown. Detroit Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Pratt, 6 Cir., 2 F.2d 193; Spero-Nelson v. Brown, 6 Cir., 175 F.2d 86, 89; Scott v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 3 Cir., 151 F.2d 61, 64-65.

It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was heard upon the record, briefs, and argument of counsel ;

And it appearing that appellant’s complaint that the verdict and judgment in favor of appellee in the amount of $27,500.-00 for personal injuries, property damage and medical expenses arising out of a collision between appellant’s automobile and appellee’s tractor-trailer, is excessive, was considered and rejected by the trial judge in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial;

And such ruling by the trial judge being reviewable only for abuse of discretion, and no such abuse being shown. Detroit Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Pratt, 6 Cir., 2 F.2d 193; Spero-Nelson v. Brown, 6 Cir., 175 F.2d 86, 89; Scott v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 3 Cir., 151 F.2d 61, 64-65.

It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 F.2d 486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sebring-trucking-co-v-white-ca6-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack