Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendanttrialverdictmotionmotion for new trial
defendanttrialverdictmotionmotion for new trial

Related Cases

Draper v. Airco, Inc., 580 F.2d 91
View Case »
McCowen v. Pew, 18 Cal.App. 482, 123 P. 354
View Case »
Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., 646 F.Supp.2d 510, 2009-2 Trade Cases P 76,700, 95 U.S.P.Q.2d 1108
View Case »
Southwestern Const. Co., Inc. v. Liberto, 385 So.2d 633
View Case »
Thomas v. Weller, 204 Neb. 298, 281 N.W.2d 790
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Longoria v. Hunter Express, Ltd., Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2017 WL 6459646

Facts

Defendants filed a Motion for New Trial, arguing that the jury's verdict was against the great weight of the evidence. The court reviewed the motion, the plaintiff's response, the record, and the applicable law to determine the validity of the defendants' claims regarding the jury's decision.

A trial court should grant a party's motion for new trial only if the jury's verdict is against the great weight of the evidence.

Issue

Whether the jury's verdict was against the great weight of the evidence, warranting a new trial.

A trial court should grant a party's motion for new trial only if the jury's verdict is against the great weight of the evidence.

Rule

A trial court should grant a party's motion for new trial only if the jury's verdict is against the great weight of the evidence.

It is irrelevant that a judge might have decided a case differently—our system views with great suspicion attempts to displace the jury's role as factfinder.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by carefully considering the evidence presented during the trial and the arguments made by both parties. It determined that the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence and did not find it to be against the great weight of the evidence, thus upholding the jury's role as the factfinder.

Defendants' Motion for New Trial (Dkt. No. 89) is hereby DENIED.

Conclusion

The court denied the Defendants' Motion for New Trial, concluding that the jury's verdict was not contrary to the great weight of the evidence.

It is so ORDERED.

Who won?

The Plaintiff prevailed in the case because the court found that the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence and did not warrant a new trial.

You must be