Catherine McCloskey v. James P. Kane, Jr., 285 F.2d 297 (D.C. Cir. 1960). · Go Syfert
Search
Catherine McCloskey v. James P. Kane, Jr., 285 F.2d 297 (D.C. Cir. 1960). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Pate v. Seaboard Railroad (ca3, 1987-06-23)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pate v. Seaboard Railroad
3rd Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Co., 289 F.2d 726, 729 (7th Cir.) (district court could not consider grounds for new trial offered after ten day service period expired despite oral grant of extension of time for filing), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 835 , 82 S.Ct. 61 , 7 L.Ed.2d 36 (1961); Francis v. Southern Pacific Co., 162 F.2d 813, 818 (10th Cir.1947) (amendment to motion for new trial filed after 11 day service period could not be considered by district court), aff'd, 333 U.S. 445 , 68 S.Ct. 611 , 92 L.Ed. 798 (1948); McCloskey v. Kane, 285 F.2d 297, 298 (D.C.Cir.1960) (per curiam) (district court correctly refused to conside…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lewis v. Seaboard Railroad
11th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Co., 289 F.2d 726, 729 (7th Cir.) (district court could not consider grounds for new trial offered after ten day service period expired despite oral grant of extension of time for filing), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 835 , 82 S.Ct. 61 , 7 L.Ed.2d 36 (1961); Francis v. Southern Pacific Co., 162 F.2d 813, 818 (10th Cir.1947) (amendment to motion for new trial filed after 11 day service period could not be considered by district court), aff'd, 333 U.S. 445 , 68 S.Ct. 611 , 92 L.Ed. 798 (1948); McCloskey v. Kane, 285 F.2d 297, 298 (D.C.Cir.1960) (per curiam) (district court correctly refused to conside…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Catherine McCLOSKEY, Appellant
v.
James P. KANE, Jr., Et Al., Appellees
15641.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Dec 8, 1960.
285 F.2d 297
Mr. John E. Kennahan, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Joseph D. Bulman and Sidney M. Goldstein, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant., Mr. Walter J. Murphy, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. J. Harry Welch, H. Mason Welch, J. Joseph Barse, Arthur V. Butler and James A. Welch.. Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellees.
Reed, Fahy, Washington.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

This is a negligence case, involving a painful personal injury, in which appeal is taken from an order of the District Court denying plaintiff-appellant’s motion for a new trial. No appeal was taken from the judgment itself. The jury had rendered a verdict for the plaintiff, in the amount of $2,000. The original motion papers did not allege inadequacy of the verdict as a ground for new trial, but relied on certain alleged errors in the conduct of the trial. Several weeks later — on the day before the motion was scheduled to come on for argument — plaintiff filed a supplemental document attacking the amount awarded as too small, and contending that the jury had improperly reached a compromise verdict. [1] At the hearing, defendant’s counsel claimed surprise, and asked for postponement of the ar[*298] gument. The trial judge declined to consider the supplemental pleading, or argument based on it, as it had not been filed within the ten-day period fixed by Fed. R.Civ.P. 59, 28 U.S.C. He then heard oral argument on the grounds urged in the original motion papers, which had been timely filed, and denied the motion.

On these facts, we think the judge was within his discretion in proceeding with the hearing on a basis limited to the grounds stated in the original motion. We find no abuse of discretion in any respect.

Affirmed.

1

. Plaintiff’s supplemental papers urged that her admitted medical expenses were in the amount of $2,000, and that thus the verdict allowed nothing for pain and suffering. Cf. Reisberg v. Walters, 6 Cir., 1940, 111 F.2d 595.