TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Mize v. Hearst

E.J. Mize v. W.R. Hearst

Mize v. Hearst, 63 P. 30 (Cal. 1900)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 11, 1900
Docket
No. S.F. No. 1595.
Judges
THE COURT.
Citations
63 P. 30130 Cal. 6301900 Cal. LEXIS 900

Opinion of the Court

Action to recover damages for the publication of a libel by defendant in his newspaper, the "Examiner." The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of two thousand six hundred and fifty dollars, for which amount judgment was rendered. Defendant appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

No exception is taken to any ruling of the court below at the trial, nor is any alleged error of law presented; and the sole point made here for the reversal is that the amount of the damages found by the jury is excessive. But, on well-settled principles, an appellate court is not warranted in setting aside the verdict of a jury on this ground, unless the amount of damages assessed is so unreasonably large and extravagant as to show that the jury were actuated by passion, prejudice or corruption; and it is sufficient to say that the record here does not show such a case.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1906: 11932: 11950: 119062026peak 1906 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Werner v. Southern California Associated Newpapers216 P.2d 825 (Cal. 1950)
  2. Evarts v. Santa Barbara Consolidated Railway Co.86 P. 830 (Cal. Ct. App. 1906)
  3. Rikimatsu Kawamura v. Honek16 P.2d 150 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932)

Most recent

  1. Werner v. Southern California Associated Newpapers216 P.2d 825 (Cal. 1950)
  2. Rikimatsu Kawamura v. Honek16 P.2d 150 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932)
  3. Evarts v. Santa Barbara Consolidated Railway Co.86 P. 830 (Cal. Ct. App. 1906)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list