Neese v. Southern Railway Co.

U.S.

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Citations: 350 U.S. 77, 100 L. Ed. 2d 60, 76 S. Ct. 131, 1955 U.S. LEXIS 110, SCDB 1955-008

Decision Date: 11/21/1955

Docket Number: No. 28

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: Neese v. Southern Railway Co., 350 U.S. 77, 100 L. Ed. 2d 60, 76 S. Ct. 131, 1955 U.S. LEXIS 110, SCDB 1955-008 (1955)

More Cases: U.S. decisions from 1955

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 1% most-cited · cited by 91 decisions

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1950s1960s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

5th Cir.14

3d Cir.8

2d Cir.7

U.S.7

4th Cir.6

D.C. Cir.4

Most recently cited by10

2025United States v. Nyandoro 5th Cir.
2021Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Correction Conn. App. Ct.
2021State v. Harrison (Slip Opinion) Ohio
2021Croda, Inc. v. New Castle County Del. Ch.
2018Sessions v. Dimaya U.S.
2015the Texas Education Agency and Mike Morath, Commissioner of Education, in His Official Capacity v. Academy of Careers and Technologies, Inc. D/B/A Academy of Careers and Technologies Charter School Tex. App.
2015Dos Republicas Coal Partnership v. David Saucedo, as Floodplain Administrator and County Judge of the Maverick County Commissioners Court, and the Maverick County Commissioners Court Tex. App.
2014Blumberg Associates Worldwide, Inc. v. Brown & Brown of Connecticut, Inc. Conn.
2012Abbey v. Castille 5th Cir.
2012St. Joseph Abbey v. Paul Castille 5th Cir.

Cites 2 cases

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

NEESE, ADMINISTRATOR, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO.

Attorneys

Henry Hammer argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.
Sidney S. Alderman argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Henry L. Walker and Frank O. Tompkins, Jr.

majority Per Curiam.

We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals without reaching the constitutional challenge to that court’s jurisdiction to review the denial by the trial court of a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was excessive. Even assuming such appellate power to exist under the Seventh Amendment, we find that the Court of Appeals was not justified, on this record, in regarding the denial of a new trial, upon a remittitur of part of the verdict, as an abuse of discretion. For apart from that question, as we view the evidence we think that the action of the trial court was not without support in the record, and accordingly that its action should not have been disturbed by the Court of Appeals.

We need not consider respondent’s contention that only the jurisdictional question was presented by the petition for certiorari, for in reversing on the above ground we follow the traditional practice of this Court of refusing to decide constitutional questions when the record discloses other grounds of decision, whether or not they have been properly raised before us by the parties. See Peters v. Hobby, 349 U. S. 331, 338; Alma Motor Co. v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co., 329 U. S. 129, 132, 136, 142.