Court Opinion

ID: 9679396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:51:51.628073+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:13.241647
License: Public Domain

PEDERSON, Justice,
dissenting.
I do not think that the scope of appellate review is the same when there is an appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial as when there is an appeal from a judgment. Rule 52(a), N.D.R.Civ.P., establishes the guideline for our review of findings of fact. A motion for new trial does not constitute an “action tried upon the facts,” and no findings are necessary or appropriate. When Sola elected to seek a new trial on the basis of Rule 59(b)(6), N.D.R.Civ.P. — insufficiency of the evidence — and waive his right to appeal from the judgment, he conceded the correctness of all findings of fact.
The order denying Sola’s motion for a new trial should be, in all things, affirmed.