Morrone v. Southern Pac. Co.
MORRONE v. SOUTHERN PAC. CO.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Connor (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion for a new trial filed by the plaintiff in a civil action against Southern Pacific Company. The court denied the motion, finding the evidence sufficient to support the verdict and that no errors of law occurred during the trial.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for new trial denied“Motion for new trial is denied, and exception allowed the plaintiffs.” | agree with court The court explicitly states it found the evidence sufficient to justify the verdict and that there were no errors of law. While the court's analysis regarding the *Ballard* case is somewhat convoluted (using a case where the Supreme Court later affirmed the instruction to argue that requested instructions can still be reviewed for error), the ultimate conclusion that no error occurred is a factual/legal determination supported by the court's review of the instructions and evidence. The denial is consistent with the court's stated findings. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is 'sound with gaps'. The court reaches a defensible result (denying the new trial) based on its finding of no legal error and sufficient evidence. However, the reasoning is convoluted. The court cites *Cedzo* for a proposition about estoppel regarding requested instructions, but then pivots to *Ballard* to argue that requested instructions are still subject to review for error. The court uses the fact that the Supreme Court later affirmed the instruction in *Ballard* to support the proposition that the Circuit Court *can* find error in requested instructions, which is a somewhat indirect and confusing way to address the plaintiff's argument. The court does not explicitly address the specific legal arguments raised by the plaintiff in the motion, relying instead on a general statement that no errors of law occurred.
Opinion — Connor
O’CONNOR, District Judge.
The court has carefully considered the motion for a new trial filed b)' plaintiff in the above-entitled action in this court on May 22nd, 1947, and the briefs of attorneys and has further re-examined the instructions given by the court to the jury.
In the supplemental memorandum in opposition to motion for a new trial, filed by defendant’s attorneys, the case of Cedzo v. Bergen, 53 Cal.App.2d 667, 128 P.2d 683, 688, decided in 19-12, is cited, wherein the following language is quoted from the court’s opinion: “As a general rule it is proper for the court to state to the jury the issues raised by the pleadings (24 Cal.Jur. 825) and it is also true that a party is estopped to assert error in an instruction requested * * * by an adversary if they merely invoke the same proposition which lias been asserted by the party complaining (citing cases)”.
This court is hound by the rulings of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In Ballard v. United States, 9 Cir., 138 F.2d 540, at page 544, the Circuit Court quotes (paragraph 45) an instruction given by the trial Court. While the opinion does not state the fact, the record in the case shows that the defendants, prior to the trial, agreed to this instruction and twice during the trial, which was rather protracted, they requested the court to again advise the jury the substance of this instruction. The Circuit Court said that this was not a correct statement of the issues. It is clear, therefore, that, even an instruction requested by a party may be considered by the Circuit Court and found to be error. The instruction given by the court, in the cases cited, was subsequently found by the Supreme Court of the United States to be a correct statement of the law. United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S.Ct. 882, 88 L.Ed. 1148.
The Government, in its brief to the Circuit Court, page 67, called the Court’s attention to the fact that the particular instruction cited as error was brought to the attention of the defendants prior to the trial and, at the request of the defendants, it was repeated during the trial to the jury.
It is clear, therefore, that if the Circuit Court finds that, in its opinion, an instruction requested was erroneously given, the verdict may be set aside.
*286The Court finds that the evidence was sufficient to justify the verdict, and further the Court finds that there were no errors of law occurring at the trial.
Motion for new trial is denied, and exception allowed the plaintiffs.
Cites, in this corpus
- Cedzo v. Bergen Civ. 13057 · 1942-07-29