Velocity Express Mid-Atlantic, Inc. v. Hugen

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that, in closing argument, counsel “has no right to testify in argument nor to assume that there is evidence which has no existence’’
• ruling “plaintiffs repeated requests to the jury that it apply the ‘Golden Rule’ were prejudicial and constitute^] reversible error”
• ruling \plaintiff's repeated requests to the jury that it apply the `Golden Rule' were prejudicial and constitute[d] reversible error\
• new trial on damages when an assigned error pertained to an aspect of the trial which prejudiced only the damages calculation
• error in allowing a prejudicial closing argument to a jury in a non-bifurcated trial typically requires remand of a new trial on all issues, but specific circumstances of the case required only a new trial on damages

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).