Feltman v. Wilding

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Oct. 15, 1947.

Decided Oct. 20, 1947.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1947-10-20

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 1955

4 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

3 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“It is settled that we cannot review a trial court's decision to grant or deny a new trial on the ground that a verdict was excessive or inadequate.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Levine v. Mills

Relies on Washington Times Co. v. Bonner

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1947-10-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Mr. Paul J. Sedgwick, of Washington, D. C., for appellants.

¶2Mr. David G. Bress, of Washington, D. C. , with whom Mr. Alvin L. Newmyer, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee Sammond.

¶3Mr. Joseph D. Bulman, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Sidney M. Goldstein, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee Wilding.

¶4Before EDGERTON, Associate Justice, MARIS, Circuit Judge, and PRETTY-MAN, Associate Justice.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6Appellants, who were defendants in a personal injury action, contend among other things that the charge to the jury was defective and that the $20,000 verdict was excessive. We find no error either in the charge or elsewhere. It is settled that we cannot review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a new trial on the ground that a verdict was excessive or inadequate. Washington Times Co. v. Bonner, 66 App. D.C. 280, 86 F.2d 836, 110 A.L.R. 393.

¶7Affirmed.