Legal Opinion

Andrew v. Goodale

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided June 7, 1932PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.

If the verdict might be found reasonably adequate, it should stand. Its overturn must rest on a finding that the evidence to show the inadequacy is so overwhelming as to make it unfair. Bennett v. Larose, 82 N. H. 443, 448, and cases cited; Morrell v. Gobeil, 84 N. H. 150, 151. Any conclusion of mistake, partiality or corruption must here be drawn from a preliminary finding of its insufficiency. The record shows no evidence of impropriety unless in its limited amount. The plaintiff is understood to concede this, and to refer to his prior bankruptcy and to his unfavorable manner as a witness…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Bennett v. LaroseSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1926
  2. Doody v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1914
  3. Morrell v. GobeilSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1929
  4. Webster v. SeaveySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1927
  5. Williams v. DustonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1920

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Wisutskie v. MalouinSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1936
  2. Morrison v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1933
  3. Gowen v. BrothersSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1981
  4. Gilbert v. DesmaraisSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1934
  5. Bryson v. CarrollSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1945

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

Powered by the Exa API