Doug Roy, Jr., Individually v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, a German Corporation, Defendants
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Per curiam
Appellees made a timely motion for new trial within ten days after the judgment under Rule 59(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The ground specified was the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. Petitioners argue that that basis for the motion was not advanced with sufficient particularity. A later document, filed after the ten-day period, furnished the detailed arguments. The initial motion was adequate to preserve the jurisdiction of the district court to rule on the motion. The later document was not an amendment advancing a new ground but, rather, it was an…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Nita B. Pogue v. International Industries, Inc., (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1975
3Cited by28 opinions
- Morgan Distributing Company, Inc. v. Unidynamic Corporation (Formerly Known as Umc Industries, Inc.)Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1989
- Murphy v. City of Long BeachCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Pate v. Seaboard RailroadCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1987
- Murphy v. City of Long BeachCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Registration Control Systems, Inc. v. Compusystems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.