2001 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-5-2001

Pryer v. Slavic

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 00-3297

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2001

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2001 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Pryer v. Slavic" (2001). 2001 Decisions. Paper 147.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2001/147
 UNREPORTED NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 _____________ 

 No. 00-3297 

 _____________ 

 RAYMOND T. PRYER 

 v. 

 C.O. 3 SLAVIC; C.O. 1 COOK; C.O. 1 D. BURSEY, 

 Appellants 

 _____________ 

 Appeal from the United States District Court 

 for the Western District of Pennsylvania 

 (D.C. Civ. No. 92-1461) 

 District Judge: Honorable Gary L. Lancaster 

 _____________ 

 Argued 

 October 26, 2000 

 Before: MANSMANN, ALITO, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges. 

 

 _____________ 

 ORDER AMENDING OPINION 

 _____________ 

 The opinion filed on May 30, 2001 is amended as follows: 

 Page 18, line 2 delete the word "effectively"; 

 Page 18, insert the following paragraphs before the paragraph 

beginning 

"Rather than reversing . . . . 

 The majority seeks to justify its departure from 

our 

 established standard of review, and its consequent substitution 

 of its discretion for that of the trial judge, by invoking two 

 purported exceptions: First, the majority asserts that no 

 deference is due "where a trial court fails to explain its 

 grounds for exercising discretion, and its reasons for doing so 

 are not otherwise apparent from the record". Supra at 7 n.4. 

 However, the District Court's reasons for limiting the second 

 trial to damages are made abundantly clear in its opinion: As 

 the Court explained, "a new trial is appropriate on the issue of 

 damages because the court failed to properly instruct the jury 

 on damages" (by, inter alia, giving an unwarranted nominal 

 damages instruction), and because the resulting nominal 
 damages award was against the weight of the evidence. 

 Implicit in the Court's recital of errors in the damages 

 instructions and award was its recognition that there was no 

 error in the liability instructions or verdict. Ordinarily, the 

 presence of error limited to a single issue should be 

 considered reason enough to limit retrial to that issue. 

 Although the majority may consider the stated reasons 

 insufficient, it cannot fairly be said that the trial Court 

 "articulated no rationale". 

 Second, the majority asserts that the District 

Court's 

 grant of a partial retrial "turns on the application of a legal 

 precept to the evidence". Supra at 7 n.4. The majority does 

 not identify what "legal precept" it deems controlling. The 

 due process and fairness concerns set forth in Gasoline 

 Products clearly speaks to discretion, and we (and other 

 courts) have always considered its application to be an 

 exercise of discretion, rather than a legal determination. The 

 majority's cryptic invocation of the "legal precept" exception, 

 without identifying a controlling question of law, threatens to 

 eviscerate the abuse of discretion standard: potentially, every 

 exercise of discretion may be subjected to plenary review at 

 the whim of the reviewing court by pointing out that some 

 "legal precept" is somehow involved. By substituting its 

 judgment for that of the District Court (in which the discretion 

 is intended to be reposed) on the basis of such ill-considered, 

 amorphous exceptions, the majority has fundamentally altered 

 our standard of review, effectively overruling sub silentio our 

 decisions in Vizzini and Stanton. 

 Page 19, line 2 delete "finding an abuse of discretion by" and 

substitute 

"overriding" 

 Page 19, line 3 after Court add "'s discretion" 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 

 /s/ Carol Los 

Mansmann 

 Circuit Judge 

 Dated: June 5, 2001