Singleton v. Valianos, No. 6315
| Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
| Writing for the Court | PHELPS; UDALL |
| Citation | 323 P.2d 697,84 Ariz. 51 |
| Parties | Josephine SINGLETON, Appellant, v. Lee VALIANOS, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 02 April 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 6315 |
Page 697
v.
Lee VALIANOS, Appellee.
[84 Ariz. 52]
Page 698
Foster G. Mori; Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp, and Charles A. Stanecker, Phoenix, for appellant.Moore & Romley, and Anthony T. Deddens, Phoenix, for appellee.
PHELPS, Justice.
Plaintiff Josephine Singleton brought this action against defendant Lee Valianos on a complaint that his negligence caused a collision between his automobile and her automobile as a result of which she sustained personal injuries. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment rendered on a jury verdict in favor of defendant. The trial court overruled plaintiff's motion for a new trial. Although plaintiff lists two assignments of error, we regard them more properly as one assignment of error with two alleged grounds therefor: That the trial court erred in overruling plaintiff's motion for a new trial on the grounds that (1) passion and prejudice actuated the jury's verdict, and (2) insufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict and the judgment entered thereon.
As to the first ground for plaintiff's motion for a new trial, it appears to us that the only basis plaintiff gives for her claim of passion and prejudice is that the rendition of a verdict in favor of the defendant in this case is so manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence that such a verdict can be accounted for only as having been reached as a result of passion and prejudice. If this be the only basis, and we believe it is, the only issue presented by the assignment of error is whether sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdcit. It the jury rendered a verdict contrary to the weight of the evidence, that fact alone serves as a proper ground for the motion for a new trial. Under the propositions of law and argument presented by the plaintiff, if the verdict and judgment were to be set aside, they must be set aside, not on the basis of passion and prejudice, but on the basis of insufficient evidence to support them.
The defendant maintains that the plaintiff cannot raise insufficiency of the [84 Ariz. 53] evidence to justify the verdict for the first time on a motion for a new trial. He contends that the plaintiff's failure to move for a directed verdict at the proper time precludes her from raising on appeal the question of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict. In a case which differs from this one only in the fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dawson v. Withycombe, No. 1 CA-CV 06-0043.
...on the sufficiency of such evidence, the appellants were limited to making a motion for new trial under Rule 59(a). Singleton v. Valianos, 84 Ariz. 51, 53, 323 P.2d 697, 699 (1958); Smith v. Moroney, 79 Ariz. 35, 41, 282 P.2d 470, 474 (1955). See 9A Charles Alan Wright and Arthur R. Miller,......
-
A Tumbling-T v. Flood Dist. of Maricopa, No. 1 CA-CV 07-0453.
...at 178, and of sufficient probability, e.g., "strong tendency," id., or of an "inevitably recurring character," Leeson, 84 Ariz. at 50, 323 P.2d at 697, that it depreciates the value of the plaintiff's property. Such a finding is to be made by the trier of fact. See Clausen, 59 Ariz. at 86,......
-
Dawson v. Withycombe, No. 1 CA-CV 06-0043.
...on the sufficiency of such evidence, the appellants were limited to making a motion for new trial under Rule 59(a). Singleton v. Valianos, 84 Ariz. 51, 53, 323 P.2d 697, 699 (1958); Smith v. Moroney, 79 Ariz. 35, 41, 282 P.2d 470, 474 (1955). See 9A Charles Alan Wright and Arthur R. Miller,......
-
Pierce v. Lopez, No. 2
...evidence on motion for new trial adequately affords the trial court the opportunity to rule before appeal is filed. Singleton v. Valianos, 84 Ariz. 51, 323 P.2d 697 (1958). See also, Smith v. Moroney, 79 Ariz. 35, 282 P.2d 470 (1955). The grant or denial of the motion for new trial is withi......
-
Dawson v. Withycombe, No. 1 CA-CV 06-0043.
...on the sufficiency of such evidence, the appellants were limited to making a motion for new trial under Rule 59(a). Singleton v. Valianos, 84 Ariz. 51, 53, 323 P.2d 697, 699 (1958); Smith v. Moroney, 79 Ariz. 35, 41, 282 P.2d 470, 474 (1955). See 9A Charles Alan Wright and Arthur R. Miller,......
-
A Tumbling-T v. Flood Dist. of Maricopa, No. 1 CA-CV 07-0453.
...at 178, and of sufficient probability, e.g., "strong tendency," id., or of an "inevitably recurring character," Leeson, 84 Ariz. at 50, 323 P.2d at 697, that it depreciates the value of the plaintiff's property. Such a finding is to be made by the trier of fact. See Clausen, 59 Ariz. at 86,......
-
Dawson v. Withycombe, No. 1 CA-CV 06-0043.
...on the sufficiency of such evidence, the appellants were limited to making a motion for new trial under Rule 59(a). Singleton v. Valianos, 84 Ariz. 51, 53, 323 P.2d 697, 699 (1958); Smith v. Moroney, 79 Ariz. 35, 41, 282 P.2d 470, 474 (1955). See 9A Charles Alan Wright and Arthur R. Miller,......
-
Pierce v. Lopez, No. 2
...evidence on motion for new trial adequately affords the trial court the opportunity to rule before appeal is filed. Singleton v. Valianos, 84 Ariz. 51, 323 P.2d 697 (1958). See also, Smith v. Moroney, 79 Ariz. 35, 282 P.2d 470 (1955). The grant or denial of the motion for new trial is withi......