Court Opinion

ID: 989841
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:12:50.632295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:24.849307
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MARIAN K. AGNEW,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                      No. 95-2819
ERNEST S. HENDRY, JR.; JUDITH
VENTURA HENDRY,
Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge.
(CA-94-1559-A)

Submitted: May 28, 1996

Decided: July 19, 1996

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Ernest S. Hendry, Jr., Judith Ventura Hendry, Appellants Pro Se.
Martin Ray Mann, Falls Church, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

The Appellants, Ernest and Judith Hendry, appeal from the district
court's denial of their motions for a new trial and remittitur. A jury
found that the Hendrys owed Marian Agnew $26,066.17 in fees and
interest for legal work she had performed over an extended period of
time for the Hendrys. The Hendrys sought a new trial and remittitur
claiming that the trial court committed various errors and was preju-
diced against them. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

The standard the trial court must apply in deciding whether to grant
a motion for a new trial has been described by this court as follows:

          Under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a
          trial judge may weigh the evidence and consider the credi-
          bility of the witnesses and, if he finds the verdict is against
          the clear weight of the evidence, is based on false evidence
          or will result in a miscarriage of justice, he must set aside
          the verdict, even if supported by substantial evidence, and
          grant a new trial.1

Having reviewed the record, we cannot say that the district court
abused its discretion in failing to find the verdict to be against the
clear weight of the evidence, based on false evidence, or a miscar-
riage of justice.2

Further, our examination of compensatory damage awards places
an extraordinary burden of proof on the party seeking to challenge the
award. We shall not set aside an award of compensatory damages as
excessive unless it is "against the clear weight of the evidence, or is
based upon evidence which is false, or will result in a miscarriage of
justice."3 We do not find the jury's award excessive or a miscarriage
of justice.
_________________________________________________________________
1 Poynter by Poynter v. Ratcliff , 874 F.2d 219, 223 (4th Cir. 1989).
2 Abasiekong v. City of Shelby, 744 F.2d 1055, 1059 (4th Cir. 1984).
3 Johnson v. Parrish, 827 F.2d 988, 991 (4th Cir. 1987) (quoting Aetna
Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Yeatts, 122 F.2d 350, 352 (4th Cir. 1941)); see also
Johnson v. Hugo's Skateway, 974 F.2d 1408, 1414 (4th Cir. 1992) (in
banc).

                     2
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order denying the Hen-
drys a new trial and remittitur. Additionally, we deny Agnew's
motion to dismiss this appeal. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED

                    3