St. Paul Hospital and Casualty Company v. Helsby
| Decision Date | 30 June 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 16886.,16886. |
| Citation | 304 F.2d 758 |
| Parties | ST. PAUL HOSPITAL AND CASUALTY COMPANY and Mutual Benefit Health and Accident Association, Appellants, v. Walter HELSBY, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Donald B. Smith, of Randall, Smith & Blomquist, St. Paul, Minn., for appellants; John P. Vitko, St. Paul, Minn., and Hugh V. Plunkett, Jr., Austin, Minn., on the brief.
Irvin E. Schermer, of Schermer & Gensler, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.
Before VOGEL and RIDGE, Circuit Judges, and DEVITT, District Judge.
Walter Helsby, plaintiff-appellee, instituted this action against the defendants-appellants to recover damages for breach of an agency contract, claiming that the appellants wrongfully, unlawfully and unjustifiedly breached the contract, to his damage in the amount of $400,000. The case was tried to a jury, which found in favor of the appellee and assessed his damages at $156,000. In considering a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial, the District Court first denied the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. As to the alternative motion for a new trial, the District Court denied it also, but with the provision that within thirty days thereof the appellee enter a remittitur to the extent of $101,000. Appellee consented to the remittitur, thus reducing the jury verdict from $156,000 to $55,000. Thereupon appeal was taken to this court.
In denying appellants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial, the District Judge wrote a carefully detailed and fully considered opinion, Helsby v. St. Paul Hospital & Casualty Co. et al., 1961, 195 F.Supp. 385. We believe that each of appellants' points or claimed errors which might possibly present any substance whatsoever has been meticulously covered by Judge Henley in his published opinion. To restate the facts indicated by the record here, to rephrase the issues of law and rewrite Judge Henley's conclusions, with which conclusions we fully concur, would serve no useful purpose. We have carefully considered each error claimed by the appellants and find no merit therein.
The very most that can be said for the appellants' contentions is that they may have raised doubtful questions of state law. We have said many times that the rule is not whether the trial court reached a correct conclusion as to a doubtful question of state law, but whether it reached a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rose City Transit Co. v. City of Portland
...grounds. (Citations omitted.)' See also Helsby v. St. Paul Hospital and Casualty Company, 196 F.Supp. 385 (D. Minn. 1961), aff'd, 304 F.2d 758 (8th Cir. 1962); Local 205, United Elec., R. & M. Wkrs. v. General Elec. Co., 172 F.Supp. 53 (D.Mass.1959); Cook, Commissioner of Revenue, v. Consol......
-
City of St. Paul v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.
...F.2d 720, 723 (8th Cir. 1964); Campbell v. Village of Silver Bay, Minn., 315 F.2d 568, 575 (8th Cir. 1963); St. Paul Hospital & Cas. Co. v. Helsby, 304 F.2d 758, 759 (8th Cir. 1962). I do not think a doubtful question of state law exists here. The opinions of the Minnesota Supreme Court we ......
-
Borbely v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
...good cause for termination. See Helsby v. St. Paul Hospital and Casualty Co., 195 F.Supp. 385 (D.Minn.1961), aff'd per curiam 304 F.2d 758 (8th Cir. 1962); Quick v. Southern Churchman Co., 171 Va. 403, 199 S.E. 489 (1938). Plaintiffs produced no evidence to show, or from which a jury could ......
-
Golden West Construction Company v. United States, 6780.
... ... And see Peerless Casualty Company et al. v. United States for Use and Benefit of Bangor Roofing and ... ...