Bernice Pierce v. Southern Pacific Transportation Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the defendant’s view was that one of the jury’s findings negated its negligence “as a matter of law”
• stating that a “court has a duty to reconcile the 16 jury’s special verdict responses on any reasonable theory consistent with the evidence”
• explaining that objections to inconsistent special verdicts need not be raised before jury discharge under Rule 49(a)
• citing, inter alia , Gallick v. Baltimore & O. R.R. , 372 U.S. 108 , 119-22, 83 S.Ct. 659 , 9 L.Ed.2d 618 (1963)
• “A reviewing court must uphold a verdict even if it finds only ‘slight’ or ‘minimal’ facts to support a jury’s findings[.]”
• “A reviewing court must uphold a verdict even if it finds only ‘slight’ or ‘minimal’ facts to support a jury’s findings[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).