Legal Opinion
Fowler-Propst v. Dattilo
New Mexico Court of Appeals
Decided January 22, 1991No. 12140PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HARTZ, Judge.
The district court ruled that newly discovered evidence required setting aside a judgment in favor of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs contend that the district court erred because the new evidence concerned an event that did not occur until after trial. We reverse. A new trial should not be granted solely on the ground that a post-trial event undercuts a prediction which formed the basis for the assessment of damages.
Plaintiffs sued defendant Dattilo for misrepresentation and professional negligence relating to the sale of a house that turned out to have an inadequate water well.…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Southmark Properties and St. Charles Avenue, Inc. v. The Charles House CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1984
- Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. A & P Steel, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1984
- Austin Joseph Ryan v. United States Lines CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
- Gurvan B. Brown v. Pennsylvania Railroad CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1960
- National Anti-Hunger Coalition v. Executive Committee of the President's Private Sector Survey on Cost ControlCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1983
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Century Bank v. HymansNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1995
- Alliant Hospitals, Inc. v. BenhamCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 2003
- Lucero v. Yellow Freight System, Inc.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1991
- Office of the Guardian ad Litem v. A.M.K.Utah Supreme Court · 2007
- Rochester v. RochesterNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1998
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.