Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Neese v. Southern Railway Co.

Neese v. S. Ry. Co., 350 U.S. 77 (1955)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1955-11-21
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • even assuming appellate review power under the Seventh Amendment, Court of Appeals was not justified in reversing denial of new trial on the particular facts of the case
  • where jury awards verdict under federal cause of action, district court should not disturb damage amount supported by the record
  • ‘‘we follow the traditional practice of this [c]ourt of refusing to decide constitutional questions when the record discloses other grounds of decision, whether or not they have been properly raised . . . by the parties’’
  • avoiding jurisdictional questions in order to avoid constitutional questions

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Neese v. Southern Railway Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
155 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Civil Procedure — New Trial Where a trial court's denial of a new trial, upon remittitur of part of the verdict, finds support in the record, the court's action is not an abuse of discretion and should not be disturbed by an appellate court. 350 U.S. at 77
  2. Constitutional Law — Avoidance of Constitutional Questions A court will refuse to decide constitutional questions when the record discloses other grounds of decision, whether or not those grounds have been properly raised before it by the parties. 350 U.S. at 78
NEESEv. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO.,350 U.S. 77(1955)
76 S.Ct. 131
NEESE, ADMINISTRATOR,v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.
No. 28.
Argued November 7, 1955.
Decided November 21, 1955.
1. The District Court's denial of a new trial, upon remittitur of part of the verdict in this case, was not without support in the record, and its action should not have been disturbed by the Court of Appeals. P. 77.

2. This Court refuses to decide constitutional questions when the record discloses other grounds of decision, whether or not properly raised here by the parties. P. 78.216 F.2d 772, reversed.
Henry Hammerargued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.Sidney S. Aldermanargued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief wereHenry L. WalkerandFrankG. Tompkins, Jr.
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals without reaching the constitutional challenge to that court's jurisdiction to review the denial by the trial court of a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was excessive. Even assuming such appellate power to exist under the Seventh Amendment, we find that the Court of Appeals was not justified, on this record, in regarding the denial of a new trial, upon a remittitur of part of the verdict, as an abuse of discretion. For apart from that question, as we view the evidence we think that the action of the trial court was not without support in the record, and accordingly that its action should not have been disturbed by the Court of Appeals.Page 78

We need not consider respondent's contention that only the jurisdictional question was presented by the petition for certiorari, for in reversing on the above ground we follow the traditional practice of this Court of refusing to decide constitutional questions when the record discloses other grounds of decision, whether or not they have been properly raised before us by the parties. SeePetersv.Hobby,349 U.S. 331,338;Alma Motor Co. v.Timken-DetroitAxle Co.,329 U.S. 129,132,136,142.Page 79