Botts, 8 Cir. Though we have heretofore adopted in Planters Manufacturing Co. As a corollary to the unique statutory context of FELA actions, it is apparent that in the general run of cases federal courts have rejected the legendary "scintilla" test. Gunning v. Cooley, U. See also, e.
EJIL: Talk! – Guilty but Free: The ICC Renders its First Contempt Case Judgment
Southern Ry. Postom, , 85 U. Carlisle Co. Cross, 1 Cir. Monarch Ins. New York Life Ins. United States, 5 Cir. Warren Company, 5 Cir. General Motors Corp. May, 7 Cir. Alaska Steamship Company, 9 Cir. Moore-McCormack Lines U. We agree with Professor Moore's analysis and conclusion that the FELA test should not be employed as a vehicle to re-establish the "scintilla" rule which has been so firmly rejected by the federal judiciary.
We note that the test of sufficiency of the evidence in FELA cases is very much like the Alabama rule which provides that if there is a scintilla of evidence a jury question is presented. Vulcan Life Accident Insurance Co. Southern Coach Body Co. Smith Corp. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. See cases and authorities cited in Part III of this opinion, infra. Finally, the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution providing for trial by jury does not require, either expressly or impliedly, that the test of sufficiency of evidence to create a jury question in a non-FELA federal case be the same as in an FELA case.
The tendency of some federal courts, at times, to use overly broad language or to cite indiscriminately FELA cases in non-FELA situations does not obviate this conclusion. Union Carbide Carbon Corp.
Guide Judge Danl Howes Renders a Verdict
Pennsylvania Railroad Co. Universal C. Credit Corp. But in non-FELA federal cases which are not based on statute, the formulation of the test of sufficiency of evidence is substantially different. We now determine what the proper test should be in determining whether there is sufficient evidence to submit a case to the jury in connection with motions for directed verdict in a federal court trial. The standard we announce is the result of a thorough study of the numerous prior decisions of this Court which have dealt with the subject.
Our task is compounded by the fact that many legal writers and commentators have used different formulations in propounding these standards and the language utilized by them remains diverse and occasionally troublesome. The directed verdict practice does not offend the Seventh Amendment.
Galloway v. United States, U. But see Galloway v. Justice Black, dissenting ; Statement of Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Seaboard Airline Railroad Co.
Falgoust, 5 Cir. Daly, , U. BB Electroplating Co. Meredith, 4 Cir.
Zahn, 8 Cir. Smith, 9 Cir. Shumate, 10 Cir. On motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict the Court should consider all of the evidence — not just that evidence which supports the non-mover's case — but in the light and with all reasonable inferences most favorable to the party opposed to the motion.
If the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the Court believes that reasonable men could not arrive at a contrary verdict, granting of the motions is proper.
On the other hand, if there is substantial evidence opposed to the motions, that is, evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, the motions should be denied, and the case submitted to the jury. A mere scintilla of evidence is insufficient to present a question for the jury. The motions for directed verdict and judgment n. There must be a conflict in substantial evidence to create a jury question.
U.S. v. CHOI | utelefufyj.tk2d 79 () | a48 | utelefufyj.tk
However, it is the function of the jury as the traditional finder of the facts, and not the Court, to weigh conflicting evidence and inferences, and determine the credibility of witnesses. The Court should consider all of the evidence and not just that evidence which supports the non-mover's case. The Supreme Court in Wilkerson v.
- Psychanalyse et possession (Sciences Humaines et Essais) (French Edition).
- Read e-book Judge Danl Howes Renders a Verdict;
- Le Sphinx des glaces (Classiques t. 2056) (French Edition).
- PDF Judge Danl Howes Renders a Verdict;
However, the Courts of Appeals have tended to reach the conclusion that all the evidence should be considered, "distinguishing Wilkerson on the ground that FELA cases are sui generis. See Dehydrating Process Co. Sexauer Manufacturing Co. Metropolitan Life Ins. Sherman Hotel, 7 Cir. The evidence must be considered in the light and with all reasonable inferences most favorable to the party opposed to the motion.
Providence Hospital, , U. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 2 Cir.
United States, 4 Cir. First National Ins.
Maryland Casualty Company, 5 Cir. Marshall, 7 Cir. Massey, 8 Cir. Holland, 9 Cir. Fenix and Scisson, Inc. Shepard, , 75 U. Richmond, Fredericksburg Potomac R. If there is substantial evidence opposed to the motions, of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, the motions should be denied, and the case submitted to the jury. Studley, Inc. Gulf Oil Corporation, 2 Cir. Birtcher Corporation, 2 Cir.
Woolworth Company, 4 Cir. Gerald, 4 Cir. Adams Construction Co. Cirino, 6 Cir. Salemi, 7 Cir. United States, 8 Cir. Erickson, 8 Cir. Swier, 9 Cir. Clayton, 10 Cir. Powell, 10 Cir. See cases and authorities cited in note 8, supra. Capital Transit Co. Mosqueda, 5 Cir. Hess, 10 Cir. Utah Pie Company, 10 Cir. Motions for directed verdict and judgment n.