McConnell v. Aluminum Co. of America

How courts have described this case

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

• stating it would have been improper for the trial court to advise the jury of the effect of its special verdict answers
• finding trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s objection to the form of its responses to the jurors’ questions
• finding no abuse of discretion while noting that the appellants “have not shown they were prejudiced by the court’s conduct [in responding to the jury questions]”
• finding no abuse of discretion while noting that the appellants \have not shown they were prejudiced by the court's conduct [in responding to the jury questions]\
• “In order to avoid confusion, a special verdict should not be called an interrogatory.”
• “The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying McConnells’ objection to the form of its responses to the jurors’ questions, and no prejudicial error resulted from the court’s communications with the jury.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).