![]() However, we do not reach the precise contentions of appellant in this regard a new trial on damages and liability was required by another error of law, not stated in the order by the court, but specified in the respondent's motion for new trial.Īs stated in Code of Civil Procedure section 657: "On appeal from an order granting a new trial the order shall be affirmed if it should have been granted upon any ground stated in the motion, whether or not specified in the order or specification of reasons," (italics added) except where the stated grounds are insufficiency of the evidence or excessive or inadequate damages. Liodas takes issue with every ground and reason stated in the new trial order, arguing that the specifications are inadequate to support the excessive damage ground, and that the errors of law were either not prejudicial or were not errors at all. 7), consisting of erroneous instructions as to both exemplary and compensatory damages and erroneous admission of certain evidence as to value of property, and excessiveness of both compensatory and exemplary damage awards. In granting the motion for a new trial, the grounds relied upon by the trial court were prejudicial errors of law (Code Civ. Liodas appealed from that order, and Sahadi cross-appealed from the order insofar as it restricts the new trial to the issue of damages.] fn. Brackets together, in this manner without enclosing material, are used to indicate deletions from the opinion of the Court of Appeal brackets enclosing material (other than editor's added parallel citations) are, unless otherwise indicated, used to denote insertions or additions by this court. Accordingly, the opinion of the Court of Appeal, prepared by Presiding Justice Caldecott, is adopted with certain deletions and additions as and for the opinion of this court. ![]() After reviewing the record we conclude that the remaining issues, insofar as necessary to a disposition of the appeal, were correctly resolved by the Court of Appeal. We granted a hearing in this case principally to determine the proper standard of proof of civil fraud, and we address that question in Part III of this opinion. Brosnahan and Pearlman & Bose for Defendant and Appellant. ![]() Heimann, Kenneth James Fishbach, Jr., Edward R. ![]() SAHADI, Defendant and AppellantĮllen Lake, Richard M. LIODAS, as Trustee, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |