Hinton v. Cline
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Evans v. Queen City Coach Company (N.C. 1959)
- Millas v. Coward (N.C. 1959)
- Daum Ex Rel. Henderson v. Lorick Enterprises, Inc. (N.C. Ct. App. 1992)
- Cole v. Duke Power Co. (N.C. Ct. App. 1986)
- Young v. Glenn (N.C. Ct. App. 1979)
- Robertson Ex Rel. Robertson v. Stanley (N.C. 1974)
- Robertson ex rel. Robertson v. Stanley (N.C. Ct. App. 1974)
- Brown v. Moore (N.C. Ct. App. 1974)
- Spinella v. Pearce (N.C. Ct. App. 1971)
- Branch v. Gurley (N.C. 1966)
- Kight v. Seymour (N.C. 1965)
- Savino Dagnello v. Long Island Rail Road Company (2d Cir. 1961)
- Dixon v. Young (N.C. 1961)
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
The plaintiff assigns as error the refusal of the trial judge to set the verdict aside and award him a new trial on the ground of inadequacy of the damages.
The granting or the denying of a motion for a new trial on the ground that the damages assessed by the jury are excessive or inadequate is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. McClamroch v. Ice Co., 217 N.C. 106, 6 S.E. 2d 850; Johnston v. Johnston, 213 N.C. 255, 195 S.E. 807; Waller v. Hipp, 208 N.C. 117, 179 S.E. 428; Blum v. R. R., 187 N.C. 640, 122 S.E. 562; Hoke v. Whisnant, 174 N.C. 658, 94 S.E. 446; Harvey v. Railroad Company, 153 N.C. 567, 69 S.E. 627; Billings v. Observer, 150 N.C. 540, 64 S.E. 435; Braddy v. Elliott, 146 N.C. 578, 60 S.E. 507; Boney v. Railroad, 145 N.C. 248, 58 S.E. 1082; Slocumb v. Construction Co., 142 N.C. 349, 55 S.E. 196; Phillips v. Telegraph Co., *138 130 N.C. 513, 41 S.E. 1022; Burns v. Railroad, 125 N.C. 304, 34 S.E. 495; Benton v. Collins, 125 N.C. 83, 34 S.E. 242, 47 L.R.A. 33; Benton v. Railroad, 122 N.C. 1007, 30 S.E. 333; Norton v. Railroad, 122 N.C. 910, 29 S.E. 886; Goodson v. Mullin and Derr, 92 N.C. 211; Brown v. Morris, 20 N.C. 565; Young v. Hairston, 14 N.C. 54. His decision on tbe motion will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is obvious that be abused bis discretion. Lamm v. Lorbacher, 235 N.C. 728, 71 S.E. 2d 49; Francis v. Francis, 223 N.C. 401, 26 S.E. 2d 907; Freeman v. Bell, 150 N.C. 146, 63 S.E. 682.
An abuse of discretion does not appear in tbe case at bar. Indeed, tbe evidence at tbe trial was consistent witb tbe view tbat tbe plaintiff’s personal injuries were limited to temporary bruises.
No error.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.