Newman v. Lynchburg Investment Corp.
Supreme Court of the United States
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. The facts are stated in the opinion. The notice as published satisfied the requirements of the law. In regard to dedications no instructions were requested nor exception taken. Therefore the judgment should not be reviewed. Met. R. R. Co. v. District of Columbia, 195 U. S. 332. The reasonableness of "the verdict is a question for trial judge and is not reviewable. Col.
Read the full summary
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. The facts are stated in the opinion. The notice as published satisfied the requirements of the law. In regard to dedications no instructions were requested nor exception taken. Therefore the judgment should not be reviewed. Met. R. R. Co. v. District of Columbia, 195 U. S. 332. The reasonableness of "the verdict is a question for trial judge and is not reviewable. Col. Heights Realty Co. v. McFarland, 217 U. S. 547, 560. No injustice is shown. The burden of proof is not upon the petitioners. Bau-man v. Ross, 167 U. S. 548; Wight…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Holmes
This was a proceeding by the petitioners for the extension and widening of Colorado Avenue and Kennedy Street in the District of Columbia, under a special act of June 30, 1911, c. 1, 37 Stat. 1. A jury was summoned, assessed the damages for the land to be condemned for the purpose, found that the lots described in a schedule would be benefited to the amounts set forth, and assessed those sums against them. The verdict was objected to and excepted to by the respondents, , but was confirmed by the Supreme Court. On appeal the judgment was reversed by the,. Court of Appeals of the District. 40…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Briscoe v. RudolphSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
3Cited by2 opinions
- Wilkinson v. DoughertyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1928
- In re Buckeye Pipe Line Co.New Jersey Special Statutory Court · 1952