John Varhol v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, D/B/A Amtrak
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
1Per curiam
John Varhol appeals from a jury verdict that awarded him what he considers to be grossly inadequate damages. Not surprisingly, Varhol’s main contention on appeal is that the damage award was too low. Preserving that issue for appeal, however, required Varhol to file a timely new trial motion in the district court. Hahn v. Becker, 588 F.2d 768, 772 (7th Cir.1979). Unfortunately Varhol served his new trial motion well after the ten-day limit Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 allows. Whether Varhol’s motion was timely, and thus whether Varhol has preserved his damages issue for appeal, depends on the status of…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Houston v. LackSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Ill.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Osterneck v. Ernst & WhinneySupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Morris W. Gordon v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1967
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by105 opinions
- Nereida Mendez v. Republic BankCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2013
- Schultz v. NORTHEAST ILL. REGIONAL COMMUTER RAILROAD CORP.Illinois Supreme Court · 2002
- United States v. Benjamin F. Gay Iii, Roy M. PorterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- United States v. Bahman Mansoori, Mark Cox, Mohammad Mansoori, Kenneth Choice, and Terry YoungCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2002
- Palmquist v. SelvikCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1997
100 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.