Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Kathleen Madaline Jarvis, Individually and as a Parent and Guardian of Paul Michael Attila Jarvis, a Minor v. Ford Motor Company
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided February 7, 2002No. Docket 99-9405(L), 00-9215(CON)Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partVan Graafeiland, Senior Circuit Judge
part.
I concur in the majority’s view that the trial court erred in granting Ford’s motion for J.M.O.L. I am convinced, however, that the verdict form was submitted under Fed. R.Civ.P. 49 and Ford’s objection thereto, made before the jury was discharged, was timely. Moreover, because entering judgment on a verdict that is irreconcilably inconsistent creates an uncertainty as to the meaning of the verdict that is fundamentally unacceptable, I dissent from the portion of the opinion that finds that Ford waived any objection to the inconsistency. The proper remedy, in my view, would be a remand…
2Cases cited49 opinions
- Chase Securities Corp. v. DonaldsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Baltimore Steamship Co. v. PhillipsSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Reilly v. ReidNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
- Smith v. Russell Sage CollegeNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
- Robinson v. Reed-Prentice Division of Package Machinery Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1980
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.