Bartlett v. Hogden
Citations
- 3 Cal. 55
Syllabus
<p>An application for a new trial on tlie ground of newly-discovered evidence, must show affirmatively, that the evidence is new, material, and not cumulative, that the applicant has used due diligence in preparing his case for trial, that the new evidence was discovered after the trial, and will be important, and tend to prove facts which were not directly in issue on the trial, or were not then known or investigated by proof.</p> <p>The amount of damages is simply a question of fact within the province of the jury. This court will not undertake to examine the proofs, or declare that tlie evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict.</p> <p>The appellate court will not disturb the order of an inferior court in granting or refusing a new trial, unless manifest error shall appear.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- explaining that a trial court “should not charge the jury that there would be an inference of negligence from a given state of facts, but should instruct them in clear and unequivocal terms that negligence must be proved” (punctuation omitted)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Wells
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.