Legal Opinion
Zipprich v. Smith Trucking Co.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided November 30, 1956PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFroessel, J.
These are two personal injury actions arising out of the same accident. They were tried together, and the liability of appellant was clearly established. The alleged excessiveness of the jury’s verdict in each case is beyond the province of this court to review (De Casiano v. Morgan, 308 N. Y. 526; Serano v. New York Central & H. R. R. R. Co., 188 N. Y. 156, 166; Dimon v. New York Central & H. R. R. R. Co., 173 N. Y. 356, 358; Oldfield v. New York & H. R. R. Co., 14 N. Y. 310). The only question open to us is the limited one as to whether there was any error of law affecting the amount of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Oldfield v. . the N.Y. and Harlem R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1856
- Randall v. . PackardNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Wagner v. . MittendorfNew York Court of Appeals · 1922
- Matter of Chiodo v. Newhall CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
- De Casiano v. MorganNew York Court of Appeals · 1955
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Daliendo v. JohnsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- Tate v. ColabelloNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- DeLany v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Huffer v. Firemen's Insurance Co. of NewarkNew York Supreme Court · 1976
- Woska v. MurrayNew York Court of Appeals · 1982