NEELY
v.
MARTIN K. EBY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
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 Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision regarding its power to dismiss a case after granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (n.o.v.). The Court is specifically examining whether the Court of Appeals erred in depriving the petitioner of the opportunity to seek a new trial.
The Court of Appeals had granted a judgment n.o.v. for the respondent, and in doing so, ordered the case dismissed. This action deprived the petitione…
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 Judgment Notwithstanding The Verdict (J.N.O.V.) cases and more on FLexlaw
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari granted. In addition to all the questions presented by the petition, counsel are requested to brief and discuss at oral argument the following questions:
“1. Whether the Court of Appeals, after deciding that respondent should have been granted a judgment n. o. v., had power under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and our decisions in Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co., 330 U. S. 212; Globe Liquor Co. v. San Roman, 332 U. S. 571; and Weade v. Dichmann, Wright & Pugh, 337 U. S. 801, to order the case dismissed and thereby deprive petitioner of any opportunity to invoke the trial court’s discretion on the issue of whether petitioner should have a new trial?
“2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the District Court not merely to enter a judgment n. o. v. for respondent but to dismiss plaintiff’s case in view of Rule 50 (c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which gives a party whose verdict has been set aside the right to make a motion for a new trial not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment notwithstanding the verdict?”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Neely v. Martin K. Eby Constr. Co., Inc., 386 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1967)…rder granting certiorari, while directing counsel’s attention to the question of the Court of Appeals’ power to dismiss the case under Rule 50 (c) and (d), stated that this question was “[i]n addition to all the questions presented by the petition.” 382 U. S. 914. See, e. g., Comment, 51 Nw. U. L. Rev. 397, 400-402 (1956); Note, 58 Col. L. Rev. 517, 524-525 (1958).…
-
Utah Pie Co. v. Cont'l Baking Co., 386 U.S. 685 (U.S. 1967)…itself to the single issue of whether the evidence against each of the respondents was sufficient to support a finding of probable injury to competition within the meaning of § 2 (a) and holding that it was not. 349 F. 2d 122. We granted certiorari. 382 U. S. 914.4 We reverse. [*689] The product involved is frozen dessert pies — apple, cherry, boysenberry, peach, pumpkin, and mince. The period covered by the suit comprised the years 1958,1959, and 1960 and the first eight months of 1961. Petitioner is a Utah…
-
Christopherson v. Kathalene Tibbels Humphrey, 366 F.2d 323 (10th Cir. 1966)…on of the district court in directing a verdict for the defendant poses a serious question. The Colorado law on negligence in personal injury actions is well summarized in Martin K. Eby Const. Co. v. Neely, 10 Cir., 344 F. 2d 482, 485, cert. granted 382 U.S. 914, 86 S.Ct. 286,15 L.Ed.2d 230. The person asserting negligence must prove it by a preponderance of the evidence and that burden is not sustained by surmise, speculation or conjecture. Proof that an accident occurred ánd an injury resulted is not enou…
Authorities Cited
- Cone v. W. Va. Pulp & Paper Co., 330 U.S. 212 (U.S. 1947)
- Globe Liquor Co., Inc. v. SAN Roman, 332 U.S. 571 (U.S. 1948)
- Weade v. Dichmann, 337 U.S. 801 (U.S. 1949)