DuBrutz v. Jessup
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Driscoll v. Batchelor's Bottling Works, Inc. (Superior Court of Rhode Island 1930)
- McCloskey v. Pulitzer Publishing Co. (Mo. 1901)
- De Molera v. Martin (Cal. 1898)
- Coffin v. Bradbury (Idaho 1894)
- Townsend v. Briggs (Cal. 1891)
- Bennett v. Hobro (Cal. 1887)
- Wise v. Burton (Cal. 1887)
- United States v. Eldredge (Utah 1887)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
We are of opinion that, so far as the party, against whom the verdict has gone, depends upon the circumstance that damages have been allowed in too great or too small a sum, he may rely upon the ground that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence. Even when—in the case of excessive damages—he is prepared to show that the excess indicates passion or prejudice, in such case, he may rely upon either one of these two grounds: that the evidence does not sustain the verdiet, or that the verdict is the result of passion or prejudice. Further, we are of opinion that this bill of exceptions contains a sufficient specification of the particulars, in which the evidence is claimed to be insufficient. And we add—there being a substantial conflict in the evidence upon the main issues submitted to the jury—we will pursue in this case the established rule, winch is, where such conflict appears, to sustain the action of the Court below.
The Court having granted a new trial, the order is affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.