Setzer v. Dunlap

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Setzer v. Dunlap

208 S.E.2d 710, 23 N.C. App. 362, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2096

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 16, 1974

Docket7418DC717

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 208 S.E.2d 710 (Setzer v. Dunlap) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Setzer v. Dunlap, 208 S.E.2d 710, 23 N.C. App. 362, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2096 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

CAMPBELL, Judge.

The defendant assigns as error the action of the trial judge in setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial.

Under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 59(a) (6), a judge may grant a new trial to any party on the grounds that inadequate damages were awarded which appear to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice. A motion in this regard is directed to the sound discretion of the trial judge and it is established that “[w]hile the necessity for exercising this discretion, in any given case, is not to be determined by the mere inclination of the judge, but by a sound and enlightened judgment in an effort to attain the end of all law, namely, the doing of even and exact justice, we will yet not supervise it, except, perhaps, in extreme circumstances, not at all likely to arise; and it is therefore practically unlimited.” Goldston v. Chambers, 272 N.C. 53, 59, 157 S.E. 2d 676, 680 (1967), quoting Settee v. Electric Ry., 170 N.C. 365, 367, 86 S.E. 1050, 1051 (1915).

We have reviewed the record and fail to find such extreme circumstances as would render this case reviewable. Consequently, this appeal is

Dismissed.

Judges Parker and Vaughn concur.

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

CAMPBELL, Judge.

The defendant assigns as error the action of the trial judge in setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial.

Under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 59(a) (6), a judge may grant a new trial to any party on the grounds that inadequate damages were awarded which appear to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice. A motion in this regard is directed to the sound discretion of the trial judge and it is established that “[w]hile the necessity for exercising this discretion, in any given case, is not to be determined by the mere inclination of the judge, but by a sound and enlightened judgment in an effort to attain the end of all law, namely, the doing of even and exact justice, we will yet not supervise it, except, perhaps, in extreme circumstances, not at all likely to arise; and it is therefore practically unlimited.” Goldston v. Chambers, 272 N.C. 53, 59, 157 S.E. 2d 676, 680 (1967), quoting Settee v. Electric Ry., 170 N.C. 365, 367, 86 S.E. 1050, 1051 (1915).

We have reviewed the record and fail to find such extreme circumstances as would render this case reviewable. Consequently, this appeal is

Dismissed.

Judges Parker and Vaughn concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 S.E.2d 710, 23 N.C. App. 362, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/setzer-v-dunlap-ncctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack