Neese v. Southern Railway Company

fullCitationNeese v. Southern Railway Company, 350 U.S. 77, 76 S.Ct. 131, 100 L.Ed. 60 (1955)
Decision Date21 November 1955
Citation350 U.S. 77,100 L.Ed. 60,76 S.Ct. 131
Docket NumberNo. 28,28
PartiesW. W. NEESE, Administrator of the Estate of William Neese, Deceased, Petitioner, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Henry Hammer, Columbia, S.C., for petitioner.

Mr. Sidney S. Alderman, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

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
107 cases
  • Brooks v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • September 15, 1967
    ...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
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • December 22, 2021
    ...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.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • February 21, 1978
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1961
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Distinct Sources of Law and Distinct Doctrines: Federal Jurisdiction and Prudential Standing
    • United States
    • University of Washington School of Law University of Washington Law Review No. 88-3, March 2019
    • Invalid date
    ...based in part on the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, see City of Los Angeles, 581 F.3d at 846; see also Neese v. S. Ry. Co., 350 U.S. 77, 77-78 (1955) (per curiam) (using the doctrine of constitutional avoidance when the parties did not raise the non-constitutional issue), but that do......
  • An Analysis of Remittitur's Effects on the Timing to File a Notice of Appeal.
    • United States
    • Suffolk University Law Review Vol. 53 No. 3, June 2020
    • June 22, 2020
    ...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......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT