Papenheim v. Lovell

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 court knew \of no authority or precedent to allow the award of damages to plaintiff for time spent dealing with matters related to the accident\ but allowing the trial court's award of $100 to stand because the defendant had not challenged it
• holding, in the context of a negligence action, that there was no authority or precedent to award damages to plaintiff for time spent dealing with matters related to the accident, but affirming the award because of defendant’s failure to challenge the award below
• “Evidence is not insubstantial merely because it would have supported contrary inferences.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).