Legal Opinion

Rudnick v. Jacobs

Superior Court of Delaware

Decided January 7, 1936No. Action on the case for negligence, No. 22PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Richards, J.:

The question presented is whether a new trial shall be granted because of the inadequacy of the verdict. In order to establish this fact the plaintiff does not rely upon the fact that no substantial damages were awarded him, but upon the fact that the verdict was less than the damages actually proved and undisputed.

When the verdict rendered by the jury is excessive, it is well established in this state that the court will grant a remittitur reducing said verdict by the amount named, or grant a new trial as the circumstances of the particular case may warrant. But where the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Gaffney v. IllingsworthSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1917
  2. Fulmele v. ForrestSuperior Court of Delaware · 1913
  3. James v. MoreyIllinois Supreme Court · 1867
  4. Risch v. LawheadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Clark v. Henshaw Motor Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Bennett v. BarberSupreme Court of Delaware · 1951
  2. Lacey v. BeckSuperior Court of Delaware · 1960
  3. Burns v. Delaware Coca-Cola Bottling CompanySuperior Court of Delaware · 1966
  4. Di Gioia v. SchetrompfSuperior Court of Delaware · 1969

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API