Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. case brief summary
330 U.S. 212 (1947)
CASE FACTS
Petitioner filed an action for damages arising from trespass upon lands in state court, and the action was removed to a federal district court because of diversity of citizenship. The jury returned a verdict for petitioner. The district court denied respondent's motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, but on appeal, the circuit court of appeals concluded that certain evidence had been improperly admitted and that petitioner's evidence was insufficient to go to the jury. The court of appeals reversed and directed that judgment be entered for respondent despite the fact that no motion had been made for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
DISCUSSION
On further appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed, holding that in the absence of a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the court of appeals was without power to direct the district court to enter a judgment contrary to the one it had permitted to stand.
CONCLUSION
The Court reversed the order of the circuit court of appeals.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
330 U.S. 212 (1947)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioner challenged an order from the
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that directed entry
of judgment for respondent despite the fact that respondent had not
made a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). The petitioner had filed the action
for damages arising from respondent's trespass upon lands.CASE FACTS
Petitioner filed an action for damages arising from trespass upon lands in state court, and the action was removed to a federal district court because of diversity of citizenship. The jury returned a verdict for petitioner. The district court denied respondent's motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, but on appeal, the circuit court of appeals concluded that certain evidence had been improperly admitted and that petitioner's evidence was insufficient to go to the jury. The court of appeals reversed and directed that judgment be entered for respondent despite the fact that no motion had been made for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
DISCUSSION
On further appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed, holding that in the absence of a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the court of appeals was without power to direct the district court to enter a judgment contrary to the one it had permitted to stand.
CONCLUSION
The Court reversed the order of the circuit court of appeals.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment