-
377 F.2d 49·
6th Cir.·
1967-05-04
·cited 40×
The court held that the district judge abused his discretion by granting a new trial based on the verdict being against the weight of the evidence, as the jury's verdict was reasonable and supported by the evidence presented.
-
731 F.2d 1042·
2d Cir.·
1984-03-30
·cited 28×
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by ordering a new trial on damages, as the issue of contributory negligence was separable from damages and the damages award was not tainted. However, the court affirmed the district court's discretion to order a new tr
-
406 F.2d 603·
10th Cir.·
1969-01-29
·cited 28×
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial, denying a continuance, or proceeding without a second pretrial hearing, and that objections to jury instructions were procedurally barred.
-
466 F.2d 1217·
5th Cir.·
1972-09-19
·cited 25×
The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying new trials for six guest passengers whose damage awards were grossly inadequate, but affirmed the denial for the driver and the decedent's children.
-
507 F.2d 533·
10th Cir.·
1974-12-11
·cited 24×
The court held that the trial court did not err in granting a new trial when the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence, and that the insurance policy was not cancelled according to its terms, thus Wesco acted in bad faith by refusing to settle.
-
344 F.2d 70·
5th Cir.·
1965-04-07
·cited 20×
The court held that the trial court did not err in its rulings on cross-examination, jury instructions, refusal of a requested jury charge, denial of a new trial, or interruptions of closing argument.
-
849 F.2d 790·
2d Cir.·
1988-06-24
·cited 16×
The court held that the jury's special verdicts were supported by the evidence, and thus the denial of plaintiff's motions for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict was proper.
-
213 F.2d 899·
3d Cir.·
1954-06-21
·cited 16×
The court held that the district court erred by failing to exercise its discretion in considering the motion for a new trial based on the weight of the evidence.
-
229 F.2d 944·
6th Cir.·
1956-02-14
·cited 8×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial because the jury's verdict was against the great weight of the evidence.
-
893 F.2d 21·
2d Cir.·
1989-12-26
·cited 6×
The court held that the 1945 agreement, not the 1986 agreement, governed the indemnification claim, and that the 1945 agreement's broad language encompassed indemnification for Conrail's own negligence. The court also affirmed the jury's apportionment of liability.
-
230 F.2d 498·
2d Cir.·
1956-03-09
·cited 6×
The court held that the plaintiff could not raise the issue of the verdict being against the weight of the evidence because he failed to move for a directed verdict. Furthermore, the court found no reversible error in the admission of evidence or the denial of using a blackboard.
-
863 F.2d 177·
1st Cir.·
1988-12-22
·cited 3×
The court affirmed the district court's grant of a new trial, finding no abuse of discretion in setting aside the jury's verdict as against the clear weight of the evidence.
-
860 F.2d 970·
10th Cir.·
1988-05-31
·cited 3×
The court held that the jury's award of $21,423 for tortious interference with contract was so inadequate as to be against the weight of the evidence, constituting an abuse of discretion, and that the statements made by Southwestern Bell were libelous per se under Oklahoma law, r
-
901 F.2d 943·
11th Cir.·
1990-05-18
·cited 2×
The court affirmed the district court's grant of a new trial, finding no abuse of discretion.
-
190 F.2d 735·
9th Cir.·
1951-06-22
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court did not exceed its jurisdiction in granting a new trial, even if it considered affidavits filed late, because it acted on the plaintiff's timely motion. A writ of prohibition is not appropriate for mere error, only for a clear lack of jurisd
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-01-17
A motion for a new trial was denied because the jury's verdict was not against the great weight of the evidence, and the exclusion of prior incident evidence and subsequent remedial measures was proper.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-05-02
The court held that the jury's verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and that the admission of unobjected-to testimony did not constitute plain error, thus denying the motion for a new trial.
-
852 F. Supp. 994·
M.D. Fla.·
2022-02-24
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial or amended judgment, finding no merit in the arguments that the court failed to adhere to the Eleventh Circuit's mandate or that the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2002-06-14
The court denied the defendant's motions for a judgment of acquittal and a new trial. The court found sufficient evidence to support the guilty verdicts and rejected the defendant's arguments regarding inconsistent verdicts, prosecutorial misconduct, discovery violations, limitat
-
993 F.2d 160·
8th Cir.·
1993-05-11
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial based on the verdict being against the weight of the evidence.
-
984 F.2d 53·
2d Cir.·
1993-01-13
The court affirmed the district court's judgment and order, finding no basis for reversal on the plaintiff's claims of conversion, breach of contract, denial of a new trial, or that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
-
468 F.2d 238·
3d Cir.·
1972-10-19
The court held that the appellant's contentions on appeal lacked merit and affirmed the conviction.
-
327 F.2d 658·
2d Cir.·
1964-01-21
The court held that the jury verdict was not against the weight of the evidence and the trial court's jury charge was proper.