Neese v. Southern Railway Co.
Neese, Administrator, v. Southern Railway Co.
Opinion
Per Curiam.
We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals 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.
*78 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 ;
Alma Motor Co.
v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co., 329 U. S. 129, 132, 136, 142 .
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 7 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(even assuming appellate review power under the Seventh Amendment, Court of Appeals was not justified in reversing denial of new trial on the particular facts of the case)
-
(where jury awards verdict under federal cause of action, district court should not disturb damage amount supported by the record)
-
(‘‘we follow the traditional practice of this [c]ourt of refusing to decide constitutional questions when the record discloses other grounds of decision, whether or not they have been properly raised . . . by the parties’’)
-
(avoiding jurisdictional questions in order to avoid constitutional questions)
Cited by 116 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court10
- U.S. Courts of Appeals65
- Federal District Courts14
- State Highest Courts16
- State Appellate Courts10
- State Trial Courts1
Relies on it most ⓘ
- Ruiz v. New Garden Township
- Grunenthal v. Long Island Rail Road
- Donald Edward Allen v. Louis S. Aytch, Individually and as Superintendent or Director of Philadelphia County Prisons
- Dr. v. J
- Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Company v. Deen
- Clay W. Bainbrich and Edra B. Bainbrich v. Hammond Iron Works, a Pennsylvania Corporation
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.