Legal Opinion

Dixon v. Prothro

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided October 30, 1992No. 66,961PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Lockett, J.:

Dasie M. Dixon sued David L. Prothro for damages caused by an automobile accident. After the second trial, Dixon moved for a new trial, contending the damages verdict was inadequate. The trial court, sua sponte, proposed an additur. Defendant agreed to the additur. Over plaintiff’s objection, the trial court entered judgment for plaintiff in accordance with the proposed additur. Dixon appealed, claiming the trial court denied plaintiff her right to a new jury trial by entering an additur judgment over her objection. The Court of Appeals…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Dimick v. SchiedtSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  2. Kansas State Bank & Trust Co. v. Specialized Transportation Services, Inc.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1991
  3. Samsel v. Wheeler Transport Services, Inc.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1990
  4. Ford v. Guarantee Abstract & Title Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1976
  5. Folks v. Kansas Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1988

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Miller v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 2012
  2. McKissick v. FryeSupreme Court of Kansas · 1994
  3. Stowers v. RimelCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1994
  4. Tuley v. City of Kansas CityCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1992
  5. Carlson v. WestoffSupreme Court of Kansas · 2000

2 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