OKRAYAENTS v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

How courts have described this case

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

• holding comments invit- ing jury to “understand [] the gravity of plaintiffs injuries,” rather than award the damages “they themselves would want to re- ceive,” did not violate the golden rule
• remitting past pain and suffering award to $2.5 million for construction accident victim rendered paraplegic
• “[T]he standard under § 5501(c) is not whether an award deviates at all 3 from past awards—it is whether an award deviates materially from reasonable 4 compensation.”
• “When plaintiffs counsel’s comments are viewed in context, it is clear that he merely sought to discredit defendants’ [witness,] . . . which he is entitled to do.”
• “[w]hen viewed under the totality of the circumstances, and in the context of the trial as a whole, it is clear that the alleged attorney misconduct in this case did not create such prejudice with the jury so as to warrant a new trial”
• “[w]hen viewed under the totality of the circumstances, and in the context of the trial as a whole, it is clear that the alleged attorney misconduct in this case did not create such prejudice with the jury so as to warrant a new trial”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).