Legal Opinion

General Motors Corp. v. Wernsing

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Decided March 3, 1983No. 808, September Term, 1982PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, C. J.

This appeal is concerned with an accommodating bailiff who, without the knowledge of the trial judge or trial counsel, supplied a dictionary to the jury, thus contaminating it. The judge declined to order a new trial as a result of the bailiffs pollution of the jury. The trial court did, however, reduce the verdict from $1,630, 284 to slightly less than half, $762,784. Obviously unsatisfied, the appellants, General Motors Corporation (GMC), Gladding Chevrolet, Inc., (Gladding), and Howard L. Seidel (Seidel) have appealed.

—THE FACTS—

On April 13, 1979, Violet Seidel, accompanied by her husband,…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Nichols v. Seaboard Coastline Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1976
  2. Alvarez v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1982
  3. Cory v. Ankeny State BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1969
  4. Shultz v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1981
  5. Palestroni v. JacobsNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1950

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Wernsing v. General Motors Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1984
  2. ACandS, Inc. v. AbateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1998

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API