In re Barwick

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that even if counsel had not intended for his words to carry such prejudicial meaning, “at any rate the argument might well have been taken by the juiy to mean that”
• plaintiff’s improper summation was “covert appeal to the jury to make this great and powerful corporation . . . feel the jury’s power in the case at bar”
• scope of argument is limited to the evidence and the fair inferences that may be drawn from the evidence
• summation warranted new trial because it \was a covert appeal to the jury to make this great and powerful corporation ... feel the jury's power\
• plaintiffs improper summation was “covert appeal to the jury to make this great and powerful corporation .. . feel the juiy’s power in the case at bar”
• \judge may have considered that ... his own brief instructions on the role of the closing arguments did not amount to 'rigorous and emphatic action' on his part 'to make certain that the jury would disregard [the] appeal to them to violate their duty' \ [footnote omitted]

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).