Ide v. Stoltenow
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHill, J.
A new trial has been granted in an action arising out of an automobile collision, for the reason that the amount of the verdict in favor of the plaintiffs is inadequate and not in a sufficiently substantial amount to cover special damages, property damages, and general damages for the injuries sustained by one of the plaintiffs. The defendants appeal from the order granting a new trial. We are not here concerned with any issue of liability, but solely with the question of whether the jury’s verdict of $1,246.24 is so inadequate as to justify the granting of a new trial.
Prior to the adoption…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- McUne v. FuquaWashington Supreme Court · 1953
- Coppo v. Van WieringenWashington Supreme Court · 1950
- McUne v. FuquaWashington Supreme Court · 1954
- Rung v. RadkeWashington Supreme Court · 1954
3Cited by19 opinions
- Palmer v. JensenWashington Supreme Court · 1997
- Palmer v. JensenWashington Supreme Court · 1997
- State v. GobinWashington Supreme Court · 1968
- Lanegan v. CraufordWashington Supreme Court · 1956
- Shaw v. BrowningWashington Supreme Court · 1961
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.