Legal Opinion · Dissent

Dreeben v. Whitehurst

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided November 7, 1931No. 10858Published

1DissentLooney, J.

I dissent from the view of the majority in holding that, appellant’s assignment, complaining of the excessiveness of the verdict, is too general, and in refusing to consider the same. This assignment (paragraph 20 of appellant’s motion) is that the court erred (in rendering judgment against appellant) because the verdict is grossly excessive, ‘,‘in that the uncontroverted evidence shows that the plaintiff’s services for the defendant were not worth more than $10, or in any event only a nominal sum.” In my opinion, the assignment is sufficient to direct the attention of the court to the error…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Clarendon Land Investment Agency Co. v. McClelland Bros.Texas Supreme Court · 1893
  2. National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. PatrickCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1917
  3. Morrison v. NeelyTexas Commission of Appeals · 1921
  4. Bason v. BasonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924
  5. Temple Lumber Co. v. Pineland Naval Stores Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1930

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

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

Powered by the Exa API