JULIAN A. AUBERTIN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An appeal from an order granting a new trial is premature and cannot be maintained because it is not based on a final judgment.
The trial court vacated a jury verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, granting a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was a quotient verdict. Th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Quotient Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order of the Trial Court entered June 29, 1957, vacating and setting aside the verdict and judgment for Aubertin and granting a new trial. The reason for this action by the Court below as stated in that order was that the verdict as rendered for $8,166.67 was manifestly a quotient verdict there being no items of special damage which could in any way support such a figure.
Appeal from such an order is premature and cannot be maintained. The appeal must be based on a final judgment below. 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1291, 1292; Milprint, Inc., v. Donaldson Chocolate Co., 8 Cir., 222 F. 2d 898, 902; Bass v. Baltimore & O. Terminal R. Co., 7 Cir., 142 F. 2d 779; 6 Moore, Federal Practice #59.09 , 59.15 ; 7 Id. #73.09 . There is no such judgment here. This is not a case in which a motion for new trial has been denied thus leaving intact the final judgment entered. See e.g., Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Underhill, 5 Cir., 234 F. 2d 620; Ft. Worth & Denver Ry. Co. v. Roach, 5 Cir., 219 F. 2d 351. Instead, the judgment below has been vacated leaving no basis for our review.
The review of the asserted error must await the second trial and appeal from that judgment. Finn v. American Fire & Casualty Co., 5 Cir., 207 F. 2d 113; Marshall’s U. S. Auto Supply, Inc., v. Cashman, 10 Cir., 111 F. 2d 141.
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DELTA Eng'g Corp. & the Travelers Ins. Co. v. Scott, 322 F.2d 11 (5th Cir. 1963)
-
McCoy Gilmore v. United States, 264 F.2d 44 (5th Cir. 1959)
-
Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. Ludwic Fusilier, 256 F.2d 278 (5th Cir. 1958)
Authorities Cited
- Finn v. Am. Fire & Cas. Co., 207 F.2d 113 (5th Cir. 1953)
- Bass v. Baltimore & O. Terminal R. Co., 142 F.2d 779 (7th Cir. 1944)
- Fort Worth & Denver Ry. Co. v. Roach, 219 F.2d 351 (5th Cir. 1955)
- Tex. & NEW Orleans R.R. Co. v. Underhill, 234 F.2d 620 (5th Cir. 1956)
- Milprint, Inc. v. Donaldson Chocolate Co., 222 F.2d 898 (8th Cir. 1955)