green
Positive treatment
1.7 score
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Trentacost v. Brussel
Whether to increase or decrease a verdict, or, alternatively, to grant a new trial as to all or part of the issues, is a matter within the discretion of the trial court, not to be disturbed by an appellate court, except where the interests of justice manifestly so require. [ Epstein v. Grand Union Co., 43 N.J. 251, 252 (1964)] No doubt the verdict of the jury was comparatively minimal when the injuries and losses are considered.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Abraham Epstein, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Grand Union Company, Defendant-Appellant
v.
Grand Union Company, Defendant-Appellant
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Sep 21, 1964.
Mr. Bobert T. QuacTcenboss argued the cause for appellant (Messrs. Burton, Seidman & Burton, attorneys)., Mr. Albert W. Seaman argued the cause for respondent (Messrs. Seaman, Williams & Seaman, attorneys).
Cüriam, Weintraub, Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Sohettino, Haneman, Hall.
Cited by 4 opinions | Published
Per CüRIAM.
The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Appellate Division.
For affirmance — Chief Justice WeiNTRaub, and Justices JACOBS, FRANCIS, PROCTOR, SOHETTINO and HANEMAN — 6. For reversal and remandment for new trial as io damages only — Justice Hall — 1.