discussing a district court’s authority to order a new trial under Rule 59(d) and an appellate court’s authority to require further proceedings as may be just under the circumstances
How later courts described this case
- discussing a district court’s authority to order a new trial under Rule 59(d) and an appellate court’s authority to require further proceedings as may be just under the circumstances
- Seventh Amendment prevents trial court from reducing jury verdict below the maximum award reasonably supported by the evidence
- section 1961 interest allowed from date of jury verdict even though judgment entered 7 months later upon denial of motion for new trial, since jury instructed to calculate verdict as if plaintiff were “paid now in cash” on verdict day
- the court allowed a remittitur to stand where the evidence showed that the jury verdict was the product of sympathy and not detached reason
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Disagreed with by Chesapeake Operating, Inc. v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc., 2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 8239 (2002)
We disagree with Justice Frost's reliance on Gorsalitz v. Olin Mathieson Chem.Corp., 429 F.2d 1033 (5th Cir.1970).
The opinion
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
PER CURIAM:
The Petition for Rehearing of Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation is denied and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12), the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is denied.