EDITH GOTTLIEB, GUARDIAN OF STANLEY GOTTLIEB, A MINOR, PETITIONER,
v.
BEN RUBENSTEIN AND RALPH M. FREEMAN, AS DISTRICT JUDGE, RESPONDENTS
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.
The court held that mandamus is not an appropriate remedy to direct a district judge's discretionary ruling on a motion for a new trial, especially when an appeal is available.
A jury awarded damages to a petitioner for injuries to her son. The defendant moved for a new trial, and the district judge granted it unless the peti…
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 Seventh Amendment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In an action filed by the petitioner against the defendant-respondent Ben Rubenstein in the District Court for damages by reason of serious injuries to her minor son resulting from an automobile accident, the jury returned a verdict in her favor in the amount of $12,-500. The defendant moved for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was excessive. The District Judge entered an order granting a new trial unless the petitioner should remit $2,500 of the judgment.
Petitioner seeks in this Court a Writ of Mandamus directing the District Judge to set aside the order referred to on the ground that he abused his discretion in failing to follow the settled law of this jurisdiction on the question of damages, Werthan Bag Corp. v. Agnew, 6 Cir., 202 F. 2d 119, that he improperly invaded the function of the jury under the Seventh Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, and that the petitioner, a widow of limited means, is without an adequate remedy by appeal.
While this Court has authority in a mandamus proceeding to require a District Judge to make a ruling in a cause pending before him, we will not undertake by mandamus to direct him what ruling to make, particularly where the ruling is one which addresses itself to the discretion of the District Judge. Ex parte Park & Tilford, 245 U.S. 82, 85, 38 S.Ct. 15, 62 L.Ed. 164; Jewell v. Davies, 6 Cir., 192 F. 2d 670, 673.
The Court is of the opinion that the Writ of Mandamus is not to be used as a substitute for an appeal and that the circumstances in this case are not so exceptional as to justify a departure from that rule. Massey-Harris-Ferguson, Ltd. v. Boyd, 6 Cir., 242 F. 2d 800, certiorari denied 355 U.S. 806, 78 S.Ct. 48, 2 L.Ed.2d 50; Walker v. Brooks, 6 Cir., 251 F. 2d 555. See: United States ex rel. Kennedy v. Tyler, 269 U.S. 13, 19, 46 S.Ct. 1, 70 L.Ed. 138.
It Is Ordered that the application for the Writ of Mandamus foe and is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Albert v. United States Dist. Court FOR THE W. Dist. OF Mich., 283 F.2d 61 (6th Cir. 1960)
-
In re The AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co., 919 F.2d 1136 (6th Cir. 1990)
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Tyler, 269 U.S. 13 (U.S. 1925)
- Werthan Bag Corp. v. Agnew, 202 F.2d 119 (6th Cir. 1953)
- Massey-Harris-Ferguson v. Hon. Marion Speed Boyd, 242 F.2d 800 (6th Cir. 1957)
- Ex parte Park & Tilford, 245 U.S. 82 (U.S. 1917)
- Jewell v. Davies, 192 F.2d 670 (6th Cir. 1951)
- Massey-Harris-Ferguson Ltd. v. Boyd, 355 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1957)
- Gullahorn v. United States, 355 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1957)
- Walker v. The Honorable Henry L. Brooks, 251 F.2d 555 (6th Cir. 1958)