Caskey v. Village of Wayland (1967)

Judge Robinson set aside this aspect of the award because he found it “so inadequate as to shock the judicial conscience and constitute a denial of justice.” We have held that “an appellate court should reverse the grant of a new trial for excessive verdict only where the quantum of damages was dearly within the ... limit of a reasonable range,” Ismail v. Cohen, 899 *152 F.2d 183, 186 (2d Cir.1990) (internal quotation marks omitted), and there is no reason to apply a differe…

However, “[plartial new trials should not be resorted to ‘unless it appears that the issue to be retried is so distinct and separable from the others that a trial of it alone may be had without injustice.’ ” Id. (quoting Caskey v. Village of Wayland, 375 F.2d 1004 *476 (2d Cir.1967)(quoting Gasoline Products Co. v. Champlin Refining Co., 283 U.S. 494 , 51 S.Ct. 513 , 75 L.Ed. 1188 (1931))).

Co., 651 F.2d 76, 95 (2d Cir.1981) (vacating judgment made on special interrogatories in a Sherman Act case and remanding for a new trial on liability and damages because two issues were interwoven), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 943 , 102 S.Ct. 1438 , 71 L.Ed.2d 654 (1982); Caskey v. Village of Wayland, 375 F.2d 1004, 1009-10 (2d Cir.1967) (vacating judgment in a negligence action because of erroneous damages instruction but ordering new trial on liability and damages); 6A Moore's…

Co., 651 F.2d 76, 95 (2d Cir.1981) (vacating judgment made on special interrogatories in a Sherman Act case and remanding for a new trial on liability and damages because two issues were interwoven), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 943 , 102 S.Ct. 1438 , 71 L.Ed.2d 654 (1982); Caskey v. Village of Wayland, 375 F.2d 1004, 1009-10 (2d Cir.1967) (vacating judgment in a negligence action because of erroneous damages instruction but ordering new trial on liability and damages); 6A Moore’s…

Accord Northeastern Telephone Co. v. American Telephone and Telegraph Co., 651 F.2d 76, 95 (2d Cir.1981) (setting aside liability findings in Sherman Act case and ordering retrial as to both liability and damages), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 943 , 102 S.Ct. 1438 , 71 L.Ed.2d 654 (1982); Caskey v. Village of Wayland, 375 F.2d 1004, 1009-10 (2d Cir.1967) (vacating judgment in negligence action because of error in charge on damages, but ordering retrial of both liability and damage…

Accord Northeastern Telephone Co. v. American Telephone and Telegraph Co., 651 F.2d 76, 95 (2d Cir.1981) (setting aside liability findings in Sherman Act case and ordering retrial as to both liability and damages), cert, denied, 455 U.S. 943 , 102 S.Ct. 1438 , 71 L.Ed.2d 654 (1982); Caskey v. Village of Wayland, 375 F.2d 1004, 1009-10 (2d Cir.1967) (vacating judgment in negligence action because of error in charge on damages, but ordering retrial of both liability and damage…

Nevertheless, a judgment cannot be upheld where the damages awarded are so excessive "as to shock the judicial conscience." See United States ex rel Larkins v. Oswald, 510 F.2d 583, 589 (2d Cir. 1975); Caskey v. Village of Wayland, 375 F.2d 1004, 1007 (2d Cir. 1967).

Nevertheless, a judgment cannot be upheld where the damages awarded are so excessive “as to shock the judicial conscience.” See United States ex rel Larkins v. Oswald, 510 F.2d 583, 589 (2d Cir. 1975); Caskey v. Village of Wayland, 375 F.2d 1004, 1007 (2d Cir. 1967).

See, e. g., Richardson v. Communication Workers of America, 530 F.2d 126 , 130 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 824 , 97 S.Ct. 77 , 50 L.Ed.2d 86 (1976); Camalier & Buckley-Madison, Inc. v. Madison Hotel, Inc., 513 F.2d 407, 419-22 (D.C.Cir.1975); Caskey v. Village of Wayland, 375 F.2d 1004, 1009-10 (2d Cir. 1967); United Airlines, Inc. v. Wiener, 286 F.2d 302, 306 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 924 , 81 S.Ct. 1352 , 6 L.Ed.2d 384 (1961); Atlantic Coast Line R.R. v. Be…

See, e. g., Richardson v. Communication Workers of America, 530 F.2d 126 , 130 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 824 , 97 S.Ct. 77 , 50 L.Ed.2d 86 (1976); Camalier & Buckley-Madison, Inc. v. Madison Hotel, Inc., 513 F.2d 407, 419-22 (D.C.Cir.1975); Caskey v. Village of Wayland, 375 F.2d 1004, 1009-10 (2d Cir. 1967); United Airlines, Inc. v. Wiener, 286 F.2d 302, 306 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 924 , 81 S.Ct. 1352 , 6 L.Ed.2d 384 (1961); Atlantic Coast Line R.R. v. Be…

See Vidrine v. Kansas City Southern Ry., 466 F.2d 1217 (5th Cir. 1972); Caskey v. Village of Wayland, 375 F.2d 1004, 1007-10 (2d Cir. 1967).

See Gasoline Products Co. v. Champlin Refining Co., 283 U.S. 454, 500 , 51 S.Ct. 513 , 75 L.Ed. 1188 (1931); Caskey v. Village of Wayland, 375 F.2d 1004, 1009-10 (2d Cir. 1967).

Caskey v. Village of Wayland, 375 F.2d 1004, 1007-08 (2 Cir. 1967); Yodice v. Koninklijke Nederlandsche Stoomboot Maatschappij, 471 F.2d 705 (2 Cir. 1972) (per curiam), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 933 , 93 S.Ct. 1902 , 36 L.Ed.2d 393 (1973).

The jury verdict is not “so grossly excessive as to shock the judicial conscience.” Caskey v. Village of Wayland, 375 F.2d 1004, 1007 (2d Cir. 1967).

Although not deciding the point because it was unnecessary to do so, we observed in Caskey v. Village of Wayland, 375 F.2d 1004, 1008 (2d Cir. 1967), that there did not seem to be “any sound rationale for formulating standards to be applied when a verdict is challenged as inadequate which would differ from those utilized upon a challenge for excessiveness.” We adhere to that observation.

Caskey v. Village of Wayland, 375 F.2d 1004, 1009-1010 (2d Cir. 1967); 3 W.

Caskey v. Village of Wayland, 375 F.2d 1004, 1007-1008 (2d Cir. 1967).

Tea Co., 281 F.2d 78 , 80 (3d Cir. 1960) (verdict not to be disturbed unless ‘so grossly excessive as to shock the judicial conscience’ so that it would be a ‘manifest abuse of discretion’ not to order a new trial).” Caskey v. Village of Wayland, 375 F.2d 1004, 1007 (2d Cir. 1967).

Tea Co., 281 F.2d 78 , 80 (3d Cir. 1960) (verdict not to be disturbed unless 'so grossly excessive as to shock the judicial conscience' so that it would be a 'manifest abuse of discretion' not to order a new trial).' Caskey v. Village of Wayland, 375 F.2d 1004, 1007 (2d Cir. 1967). 21 Nor is it amiss, in view of the preferred position to which jury verdicts are entitled in cases under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, to point out that in no previous case arising under t…

See id; cf. Caskey, 375 F.2d at 1007-08 (federal court of appeals should not disturb a trial court’s denial of a new trial for inadequacy or excessiveness of the verdict unless the denial is without support in the record).

Here, “when the issues are inextricably intertwined, such that a proper determination of the amount of damages requires an evaluation of the same evidence that gave rise to liability, any retrial must be on all issues.” Id. at *7 (citing Caskey v. Village of Wayland, 375 F.2d 1004, 1009-1010 (2d Cir. 1967)) (“Partial new trials should not be resorted to ‘unless it clearly appears that the issue to be retried is so distinct and separable from the others that a trial of it alo…

Caskey v. Village of Wayland, 375 F.2d 1004, 1008 (2d Cir.1967).

See Caskey v. Village of Wayland, 2 Cir., 1967, 375 F.2d 1004, 1009 .

See Caskey v. Village of Wayland, 375 F.2d 1004, 1007-08 (2 Cir. 1967).

See Caskey v. Village of Wayland, 375 F.2d 1004, 1007 (2d Cir.1967); see also Gibbs v. United States, 599 F.2d 36, 39 (2d Cir.1979) (“shock the judicial conscience” standard applied in Tort Claims Act case regarding claim of excessive damages).

See also Caskey v. Village of Wayland, 375 F.2d 1004, 1009-10 (2d Cir. 1967).

See also Caskey v. Village of Wayland, 375 F.2d 1004, 1009-10 (2d Cir. 1967); 6A Moore’s Federal Practice 159.06 (2d ed. 1976).

See Caskey v. Village of Wayland, 375 F.2d 1004, 1007 (2d Cir. 1967).

See Caskey v. Village of Wayland, 375 F.2d 1004, 1008 (2d Cir. 1967).

See Caskey v. Village of Wayland, 375 F.2d 1004 (2d Cir.1967).

See Caskey v. Village of Wayland, 375 F.2d 1004 (2d Cir. 1967).