U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 1957

Charlie E. May v. Ellis Trucking Co., Inc.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Decided March 6, 1957 · Martin, Miller, Per Curiam, Stewart

243 F.2d 526; 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 2953 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Clarence Clifton and John B. Mack,. Memphis, Tenn., for appellant., Ferber S. Floyd (of Nelson, Norvell & Floyd), Memphis, Tenn., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Board of Directors of the Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Regency Tower Condominium Project v. Regency Tower Venture (Haw. Ct. App. 1981)
Casale v. Dooner Laboratories, Inc. (District Court, D. Maryland 1972)
Sheats v. Bowen (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1970)
White Oak Coal Company, Inc. v. United Mine Workers of America (6th Cir. 1963)
Bell v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Co. (District Court, E.D. Tennessee 1962)
Huddleston v. Crain Bros. (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1960)

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

PER CURIAM.

In a suit for personal injuries arising from an automobile accident, appellant was awarded a jury verdict of $42,-500. On motion for a new trial, the-district court entered judgment for $25,-000 without obtaining the consent of appellant, concluding that in view of the testimony on the extent of injury the-“verdict was so excessive as to shock the conscience of the Court.” There-is no question under these circumstances-that the trial judge had the discretionary power to order a new trial, but the district court committed error by reducing the verdict without giving appellant the-option of either accepting a remittitur or of having a new trial. Kennon v. Gilmer, 1889, 131 U.S. 22, 27-30, 9 S.Ct. 696, 33 L.Ed. 110; Dimick v. *527 Schiedt, 1935, 293 U.S. 474, 482-485, 55 S.Ct. 296, 79 L.Ed. 603.

Upon remand the district court will have the power either to grant or deny a new trial generally or to deny a new trial on the condition that appellant accept a judgment for a lesser amount than the jury verdict.

The judgment is set aside and the case is remanded to the district court for reconsideration of the motion for a new trial.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.