Douglas v. Union Carbide Corporation, No. 8728.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | SOPER and BOREMAN, Circuit , and WINTER |
| Citation | 311 F.2d 182 |
| Decision Date | 07 December 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 8728. |
| Parties | Hubert Gene DOUGLAS, Virginia Douglas, and Allstate Insurance Company, a corporation, Appellants, v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, a corporation, Appellee. |
311 F.2d 182 (1962)
Hubert Gene DOUGLAS, Virginia Douglas, and Allstate Insurance Company, a corporation, Appellants,
v.
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, a corporation, Appellee.
No. 8728.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued October 11, 1962.
Decided December 7, 1962.
John S. Haight, Charleston, W. Va., and John H. Reed, Jr., So. Charleston, W. Va. (Robert H. C. Kay, Charleston, W. Va., on brief), for appellants.
J. Campbell Palmer, III, Charleston, W. Va., for appellee.
Before SOPER and BOREMAN, Circuit Judges, and WINTER, District Judge.
BOREMAN, Circuit Judge.
The appellants, plaintiffs below, seek to prosecute an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia setting aside jury verdicts in their favor and granting the defendant, Union Carbide Corporation, a new trial. At a first trial of this negligence action the jury failed to agree. A second jury trial resulted in a verdict in favor of Hubert Gene Douglas for $30,400 and a verdict in favor of Allstate Insurance Company for $1,468.26. The clerk noted in the Civil Docket the filing of the verdicts but no formal judgment upon the verdicts was ordered by the court or entered by the clerk. On May 26, 1960, immediately following the return of the verdicts and the discharge of the jury, counsel for the defendant made an oral motion before the court which was taken
On June 1, 1960, counsel for the defendant served on plaintiffs' counsel and filed with the District Court a document entitled "Grounds in Support of Motion for a New Trial." The opening paragraph thereof is as follows: "The defendant, at the conclusion of trial, having made a motion for judgment N.O.V., or in the alternative, to set aside the verdict and award the defendants a new trial, sets forth its grounds in support of said alternative motions, as follows: * * *." This eight-page document assigned twelve principal grounds in support of the motions.
In a letter to all counsel dated June 2, 1960, the court expressed the opinion that a proper motion had been made to set aside the verdicts and grant a new trial and advised counsel that a hearing of the matters arising on the motion would be held on June 13, 1960. At the hearing the court requested the defendant's counsel to serve and file these motions in writing and, there being no objection by plaintiffs' counsel, written motions were accordingly served and filed on June 17, 1960.
The court granted time for the transcription of certain portions of the testimony and for the filing of briefs. On June 15, 1961, the court addressed a letter to all counsel, which letter was filed and made part of the record. The District Court determined that judgment n. o. v. should be denied but that the verdicts of the jury should be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Britt v. DeJoy, 20-1620
...entrapped by our new rule, particularly with regard to the running of the appeals clock. See generally Douglas v. Union Carbide Corp. , 311 F.2d 182, 185 (4th Cir. 1962) (explaining that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should not be used to set traps for unwary litigants). Such a "......
-
Meriwether v. Coughlin, Nos. 821
...47 (2d Cir.1975) (quoting Witt with approval and holding that district court may not refuse oral motions); Douglas v. Union Carbide Corp., 311 F.2d 182, 185 (4th Cir.1962) (oral motion for new trial made upon announcement of verdict is made "during" trial and permitted by Rule 7(b......
-
Oertel v. Phillips, No. 44486
...may be taken and is not reviewable prior to the second trial since it is an interlocutory order. (Douglas v. Union Carbide Corporation, 311 F.2d 182, Fourth Circut (1962); Milprint, Inc. v. Donaldson Chocolate Company, 222 F.2d 898, Eighth Circuit (1955); Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan......
-
Kor Xiong v. Marks, No. COA08-52.
...later than 10 days after entry of the judgment.' A pre-judgment motion satisfies this requirement."); Douglas v. Union Carbide Corp., 311 F.2d 182, 184-85 (4th Cir.1962) ("The wording of Rule 59(b) was designed to be broad enough to permit the motion to be made both before and aft......
-
Britt v. DeJoy, 20-1620
...entrapped by our new rule, particularly with regard to the running of the appeals clock. See generally Douglas v. Union Carbide Corp. , 311 F.2d 182, 185 (4th Cir. 1962) (explaining that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should not be used to set traps for unwary litigants). Such a "......
-
Meriwether v. Coughlin, Nos. 821
...47 (2d Cir.1975) (quoting Witt with approval and holding that district court may not refuse oral motions); Douglas v. Union Carbide Corp., 311 F.2d 182, 185 (4th Cir.1962) (oral motion for new trial made upon announcement of verdict is made "during" trial and permitted by Rule 7(b......
-
Oertel v. Phillips, No. 44486
...may be taken and is not reviewable prior to the second trial since it is an interlocutory order. (Douglas v. Union Carbide Corporation, 311 F.2d 182, Fourth Circut (1962); Milprint, Inc. v. Donaldson Chocolate Company, 222 F.2d 898, Eighth Circuit (1955); Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan......
-
Kor Xiong v. Marks, No. COA08-52.
...later than 10 days after entry of the judgment.' A pre-judgment motion satisfies this requirement."); Douglas v. Union Carbide Corp., 311 F.2d 182, 184-85 (4th Cir.1962) ("The wording of Rule 59(b) was designed to be broad enough to permit the motion to be made both before and aft......