# Southern Pac. Co. v. Guthrie

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · April 9, 1951 · 186 F.2d 926

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9442722

## Case

- **Full name:** Southern Pac. Co. v. Guthrie
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 9, 1951
- **Citations:** 186 F.2d 926
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Denman
- **Judges:** Pope, Bone, Denman, Stephens
- **Cited by:** 68 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9442722

## Opinion text

DENMAN, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I dissent. The court’s opinion holds that a wrong was done the appellant, in that the verdict is for more money than it owes the appellee. That the amount is substantially more than appellant should pay we are agreed. To say that such a substantial sum is not grossly excessive and hence deny appellate relief is to me a technical mockery of that justice which we are required to give a litigant by provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2106 . That section reads: “The Supreme Court or any other court of appellate jurisdiction may affirm, modify, vacate, set aside or reverse any judgment, decree, or order of a court lawfully brought before it for review, and may remand the cause and direct the entry of such appro *934 priate judgment, decree, or order, or require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances.”
To me it seems no exaggeration to apply the term “monstrous” to such a concept of American justice. To put it otherwise, there is no more reason not to set aside a finding of the amount of damages in a verdict which the evidence shows is substantially larger than the actual damage, than there is not to set aside a verdict because the finding of negligence has no substantial support in the evidence.
From our conference it is clear that we can agree on a minimum sum to be remitted from the verdict as a condition for not requiring a new trial. That we should have done.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9442722. Public record. Not legal advice.