C.M. Rousseau, Jr. v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc.
C.M. ROUSSEAU, Jr., Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TELEDYNE MOVIBLE OFFSHORE, INC., Defendant-Appellee
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
In the plaintiffs’ petition for panel rehearing they contend the panel was incorrect in affirming the district court’s alternative granting of a new trial on the plaintiffs’ retaliation claim. The panel stated:
Although we reverse the district court’s judgment n.o.v., our disposition does not result in a reinstatement of the jury’s verdict. In granting the judgment n.o.v., the district court also granted a conditional motion for new trial. This decision will not be disturbed “in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion.”
McClain v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 473 F.2d 357, 359 (5th Cir.1973). Because we find no such abuse in this case, we remand the retaliation claim pursuant to the district court’s order.
The plaintiffs complain that a remand for new trial is inappropriate because the evidence on their retaliation claim was not against the great weight of the evidence— the standard for granting a new trial.
See A.A. Spurlin v. General Motors Corp., 528 F.2d 612, 620 (5th Cir.1976). Plaintiffs insist that the panel tacitly agreed with this argument because it reversed the district court’s j.n.o.v., i.e., finding substantial evidence to support the verdict on the retaliation claim. We reject this argument as incorrect.
It is a well-settled rule in this circuit that “a verdict can be against the ‘great weight of the evidence’, and thus justify a new trial, even if there is substantial evidence to support it.”
Shows v. Jamison Bedding, Inc., 671 F.2d 927, 930 (5th Cir.1982);
United States v. Bucon Construction Co., 430 F.2d 420, 423 (5th Cir.1970); 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2806, at 43 (1973). We found legally sufficient evidence to support the verdict, thus foreclosing a j.n.o;v. However, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the verdict against the great weight of the evidence — thus mandating a new trial. Our result implies what we clarify today: a new trial can be appropriate even when a judgment n.o.v. is not.
The petition for rehearing is therefore DENIED.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“[A] verdict can be against the ‘great weight of the evidence’, and thus justify a new trial, even if there is substantial evidence to support it.” (quoting Shows v. Jamison Bedding, Inc., 671 F.2d 927, 930 (5th Cir.1982)))
Cited by 15 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Roebuck, Dr. James R. v. Drexel University
- Mid-America Tablewares, Inc. v. Mogi Trading Co.
- Richard Deloach v. Delchamps, Inc.
- Margaret C. Wagner, by Her Next Friend George M. Wagner v. Fair Acres Geriatric Center. Margaret Wagner, by Her Next Friend, George M. Wagner
- Maria Vega, Eva Trevino, on Behalf of Herself and as Next Friend of Pedro Trevino v. John W. Gasper
- William E. Brock, Secretary of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor v. El Paso Natural Gas Company
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.