Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02663/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02663-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

Uflited State, Courr of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

AUG 8 1989 

KIRK COMPANY, a Washington corporation, ) 

v. 

Plaintiff-CounterDefendant-Appellant, 

FRANK MIRABAL, 

Defendant-CounterClaimant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

/ 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 87-2663 

(D.C. No. 87-480M) 

(D. N.M.) 

Before MOORE, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff commenced this diversity action in the United 

States District Court for the District of New Mexico, alleging 

defendant owed plaintiff over $23,000 for Christmas trees 

plaintiff delivered to defendant in 1984. Defendant answered the 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 87-2663 Document: 01019974404 Date Filed: 08/08/1989 Page: 1 
complaint, denying liability, and asserted a counterclaim against 

plaintiff, alleging plaintiff owed defendant approximately $11,000 

as credit on defendant's account due to the untimeliness of 

plaintiff's delivery of Christmas trees to defendant in 1982. The 

jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant on both claims and 

awarded defendant judgment in the amount of $11,329.68. Plaintiff 

appeals. 

On appeal, plaintiff asserts the jury's verdict was not 

supported by sufficient evidence. Plaintiff does not challenge 

the jury instructions. At trial, plaintiff failed to move for a 

directed verdict. Failure to move for a directed verdict prior to 

submission of the case to the jury bars appellate review of the 

sufficiency of the evidence. Koch v. City of Hutchinson, 814 F.2d 

1489, 1496 (10th Cir.19) (quoting Brown v. Poland, 325 F.2d 984, 

985-86 (10th Cir. 1963)), reh'g granted on other grounds, 847 F.2d 

1435 (10th Cir. 1987); Holmes v. Wack, 464 F.2d 86, 89-90 (10th 

Cir. 1972). 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

-2-

Appellate Case: 87-2663 Document: 01019974404 Date Filed: 08/08/1989 Page: 2