Foradori v. Harris

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that state law determines whether a motion for a new trial 4 Case: 19-40075 Document: 00515128779 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/23/2019 No. 19-40075 should be granted in a diversity action
• holding that because Appellant failed to show that his substantial rights were affected by the admission of the expert testimony, which was “overwhelmingly supported by other evidence,” Appellant could not show plain error
• noting that same standard applies to review of renewed motion under Rule 50(b)
• affirming judgment of $10,000,000 in damages for physical pain and suffering and mental anguish for quadriplegic with phantom pain, infections, and bed sores
• noting that “unless there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a 7 Case: 17-20725 Document: 00515257170 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/03/2020 No. 17-20725 reasonable jury to find as the jury did” this court must uphold the verdict (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• explaining that this court reviews “de novo the district court’s denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law, applying the same standard as the district court” (quoting Int’l Ins. v. RSR Corp., 426 F.3d 281, 296 (5th Cir. 2005)). However, in its Rule 50(a

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).