Court Opinion

ID: 9638283
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:39:40.430828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:05.281234
License: Public Domain

Robinson, J., dissenting. As pointed out by the majority, the trial court must exercise discretion in granting or overruling a motion for a new trial which alleges the verdict is contrary to the preponderance of the evidence, and where it is shown as in the case at bar that the trial court has failed to exercise such discretion, the cause should be reversed; but my opinion is that in the circumstances of this case the cause should be reversed and remanded for a new trial rather than sent back for any other purpose. The judgment was entered on April 30,1953; motion for new trial was filed May 7 and amended May 13. The court ruled on the motion May 28. Before the court will again consider the motion in all probability almost a year will have expired from the date of trial; in the meantime the trial court has had a large number of cases under consideration and it will be difficult to recall all those things which should be considered in determining where lies the preponderance of the evidence. Therefore in my opinion the cause should be reversed and remanded rather than sent back for the court to show at this late date that discretion has been exercised in passing on the motion. Mr. Justice George Rose Smith joins in this dissent.