Legal Opinion
Lind v. Schenley Industries, Inc.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided November 7, 1958No. Civ. A. No. 439-57PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WORTENDYKE, District Judge.
Plaintiff Lind had a verdict molded by the Court upon special findings made by the jury, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49, 28 U.S.C. Motion for direction of verdict for defendant was denied. Motion is now made for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial. F.R.C. P. 50. Both motions must be considered. Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 1940, 311 U.S. 243, 61 S.Ct. 189, 85 L.Ed. 147. The amount of the verdict as molded includes damages upon two separate causes of action. Based on the jury’s findings as to the first…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Montgomery Ward & Co. v. DuncanSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- ætna Casualty & Surety Co. v. YeattsCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1941
- Gallup v. CaldwellCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1941
- Wen Kroy Realty Co. v. Public National Bank & Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1932
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Dan Lind v. Schenley Industries IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1960
- NBCP Urban Renewal Partnership v. City of NewarkNew Jersey Tax Court · 1997
- Dan Lind v. Schenley Industries IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1960
- Lind v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1971