Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Dorsey v. Barba

California Supreme Court

Decided February 4, 1952No. S. F. 18369Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partTraynor, J.

For the reasons stated in the majority opinion, I agree that the judgment in favor of Catherine Barba should be reversed. I dissent, however, from the holding that the courts of this state do not have the power of additur.1

I

It is incongruous that plaintiffs should base their appeal upon the ground that they have been denied a constitutional right to jury trial. Although they had a jury trial, they do not want a judgment entered on the jury verdict. They attack that verdict and ask the court to rescue them from it by granting a new trial before another jury. The right to a jury trial, however,…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Dimick v. SchiedtSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  2. Gasoline Products Co. v. Champlin Refining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
  3. Cassell v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
  4. Ballard v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  5. Neal v. DelawareSupreme Court of the United States · 1881

24 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