Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Nicola Fabrizi, Administrator of the Estate of Maria Fabrizi, Deceased v. Kramer Brothers Freight Lines, Incorporated, a Corporation

Nicola Fabrizi, Adm’r, Adm’x of the Est. of Maria Fabrizi, Deceased v. Kramer Bros. Freight Lines, Inc., a Corp., 261 F.2d 594 (3d Cir. 1958)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1958-12-24
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. The single issue presented by this appeal is whether the District Court abused its discretion in refusing to grant a new trial on the ground that the verdicts returned by a jury were grossly excessive. There is no indication that the District Court acted arbitrarily or that it failed to exercise its discretion in a judicial manner. As we stated in Lebeck v. William A.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Nicola Fabrizi, Administrator of the Estate of Maria Fabrizi, Deceased v. Kramer Brothers Freight Lines, Incorporated, a Corporation. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
9 opinions
FABRIZI v. KRAMER BROTHERS FREIGHT LINES,261 F.2d 594(3rd Cir. 1958)
Nicola FABRIZI, Administrator of the Estate of Maria Fabrizi, Deceased v.
KRAMER BROTHERS FREIGHT LINES, Incorporated, a corporation, Appellant.
No. 12660.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued December 5, 1958.
Decided December 24, 1958.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Wallace S. Gourley, Judge.
William A. Challener, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.

James P. McArdle, Pittsburgh, Pa. (James E. McLaughlin, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before KALODNER, STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The single issue presented by this appeal is whether the District Court abused its discretion in refusing to grant a new trial on the ground that the verdicts returned by a jury were grossly excessive. There is no indication that the District Court acted arbitrarily or that it failed to exercise its discretion in a judicial manner. As we stated in Lebeck v. William A. Jarvis, Inc., 3 Cir., 1957,250 F.2d 285, 288: "* * * that is the extent of our concern as a reviewing court." See also Brest v. Philadelphia Transportation Co., 3 Cir., 1954,216 F.2d 331and Trowbridge v. Abrasive Co. of Philadelphia, 3 Cir., 1951,190 F.2d 825.

The judgment of the District Court,162 F. Supp. 276, will be affirmed.Page 595