Neese v. Southern Railway Company
Citation | 350 U.S. 77,100 L.Ed. 60,76 S.Ct. 131 |
Decision Date | 21 November 1955 |
Docket Number | No. 28,28 |
Parties | W. W. NEESE, Administrator of the Estate of William Neese, Deceased, Petitioner, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Mr. Henry Hammer, Columbia, S.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Sidney S. Alderman, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, 216 F.2d 772, without reaching the constitutional challenge to that court's jurisdiction to review the denial by the trial court of a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was excessive. Even assuming such appellate power to exist under the Seventh Amendment, we find that the Court of Appeals was not justified, on this record, in regarding the denial of a new trial, upon a remittitur of part of the verdict, as an abuse of discretion. For apart from that question, as we view the evidence we think that the action of the trial court was not without support in the record, and accordingly that its action should not have been disturbed by the Court of Appeals.
We need not consider respondent's contention that only the jurisdictional question was presented by the petition for certiorari, for in reversing on the above ground we follow the traditional practice of this Court of refusing to decide constitutional questions when the record discloses other grounds of decision, whether or not they have been properly raised before us by the parties. See Peters v. Hobby, 349 U.S. 331, 338, 75 S.Ct. 790, 793; Alma Motor Co. v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co., 329 U.S. 129, 132, 136, 142, 67 S.Ct. 231, 232, 233, 236, 91 L.Ed. 128.
Reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brooks v. United States
...also left as dependents some minor children." 23 See, Southern Railway Company v. Neese (C.C.A.S.C.1954), 216 F.2d 772, rev. 350 U.S. 77, 76 S.Ct. 131, 100 L.Ed. 60, on other grounds, the Court, in considering the excessiveness of a verdict, used discount rates from 3 to 5 per 24 The use of......
-
State v. Harrison
...other grounds of decision, whether or not they have been properly raised before us by the parties." Neese v. S. Ry. Co. , 350 U.S. 77, 78, 76 S.Ct. 131, 100 L.Ed. 60 (1955) (per curiam).{¶ 62} These considerations make this case a poor candidate for our review. I am always reluctant to exer......
-
Midwest Video Corp. v. F. C. C.
...and we decline to do so. Benanti v. United States, 355 U.S. 96, 99, 78 S.Ct. 155, 2 L.Ed.2d 126 (1957); Neese v. Southern Railway, 350 U.S. 77, 78, 76 S.Ct. 131, 100 L.Ed. 60 (1955); Peters v. Hobby, 349 U.S. 331, 338, 75 S.Ct. 790, 99 L.Ed. 1129 (1954). Moreover, communications technology ......
-
82 20 Communist Party of United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board
...U.S. 454, 81 S.Ct. 182, 5 L.Ed.2d 206; Mackey v. Mendoza-Martinez, 362 U.S. 384, 80 S.Ct. 875, 4 L.Ed.2d 812; Neese v. Southern R. Co., 350 U.S. 77, 76 S.Ct. 131, 100 L.Ed. 60; Alma Motor Co. v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co., 329 U.S. 129, 67 S.Ct. 231, 91 L.Ed. 128; Marshall v. Pletz, 317 U.S. 3......
-
An Analysis of Remittitur's Effects on the Timing to File a Notice of Appeal.
...verdicts). (21.) See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 (outlining posttrial motion practice and procedure relating to new trials); Neese v. S. Ry. Co., 350 U.S. 77, 77 (1955) (denying use of remittitur equates to abuse of discretion); Friedenthal et al., supra note 18, at 565 (explaining procedure trial j......