Pugliese v. Perdue

How courts have described this case

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

• remanding for a new trial because “[t]he undisputed facts establish that Perdue negligently drove his pickup truck into Pugliese, a collision involving direct bodily impact”
• remanding for a new trial where the jury declined to award damages to a plaintiff who had been negligently hit by a pickup truck
• reversing superior court’s decision to deny a new trial because the jury’s verdict “would have required sheer speculation”
• granting new trial when superior court denied damages award because, although extent of plaintiff’s injuries (continued...
• both holding that new trial required where unre-butted evidence established liability and existence of some damages, but jury awarded nothing
• \We will reverse a decision denying a new trial if the evidence supporting the verdict was so completely lacking or slight and unconvincing as to make the verdict plainly unreasonable and unjust.\ (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).