Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Dimick Vs. Schiedt

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 07, 1935

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

67 entries 4 linked 63 unlinked
Show
  1. Kennon Vs. Gilmer US Supreme Court · May 13, 1889
  2. German Alliance Ins. Co. Vs. Hale US Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1911
  3. Wilson Vs. Everett US Supreme Court · Apr 13, 1891
  4. Northern Pacific R. Co. Vs. Herbert US Supreme Court · Feb 01, 1886
  5. U.S. 474 (1935) U.S. Supreme Court Dimick v. Schiedt
    Search
  6. U.S. 474 (1935) Dimick v. Schiedt
    Search
  7. rules of the common law established at the time of the adoption of that constitutional provision in 1791. Thompson v. Utah
    Search
  8. Patton v. United
    Search
  9. The last case called to our attention or that we have been able to find that recognized the rule is that of Brown v. Seymour
    Search
  10. the damages awarded were sufficient. We have found no case where the power was exercised affirmatively since Burton v. Baynes
    Search
  11. of the Constitution. Page 293 U. S. 478 It was expressly rejected in an early case in South Carolina. McCoy v. Lemon
    Search
  12. aware of an instance in which such a jurisdiction had been exercised in modern times. And see Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Botsford
    Search
  13. Beardmore v. Carrington
    Search
  14. Sayer's Law of Damages 177. In Beardmore v. Carrington
    Search
  15. It is true that Belt v. Lawes
    Search
  16. agree that the damages should be larger. But this doctrine was expressly repudiated by the House of Lords in Watt v. Watt
    Search
  17. A.C. 115, and Belt v. Lawes
    Search
  18. was indefensible, and that no reasoned vindication of it had been found. The prevailing opinions in Barbour & Co. v. Deutsche
    Search
  19. There is a decision by Mr. Justice Story, sitting on circuit, authorizing such a remittitur, as early as 1822. Blunt v. Little
    Search
  20. of the damages. This view of the matter was accepted by this Court in Northern Pacific R. Co. v. Herbert
    Search
  21. U. S. 646 -647, and has been many times reiterated. See, for example, Arkansas Valley Land & Cattle Co. v. Mann
    Search
  22. Koenigsberger v. Richmond
    Search
  23. Gila Valley Ry. Co. v. Hall
    Search
  24. approach to a reasoned opinion on the subject in any of the decisions is found in Arkansas Valley Land & Cattle Co. v. Mann
    Search
  25. will be to weaken or subvert what it conceives to be a principle of the fundamental law of the land. Compare Judson v. Gray
    Search
  26. That rule applies with peculiar force to the present case, since, accepting Arkansas Valley Land & Cattle Co. v. Mann
    Search
  27. that any seeming curtailment of the right to a jury trial should be scrutinized with the utmost care. Compare Patton v. United
    Search
  28. The common law is not immutable, but flexible, and, upon its own principles, adapts itself to varying conditions. Funk v. United
    Search
  29. for new trial have been made and granted on the ground that the verdict was inadequate. See, for example, Carter v. Wells
    Search
  30. Usher v. Scranton
    Search
  31. Glenwood Irr. Co. v. Vallery
    Search
  32. United Press Assns. v. National
    Search
  33. Stetson v. Stindt
    Search
  34. verdict of a jury because inadequate or excessive, and in its discretion to grant or deny a new trial. Railroad Co. v. Fraloff
    Search
  35. permitted and the authority to set aside a verdict which is not within those limits. Arkansas Valley Land & Cattle Co. v. Mann
    Search
  36. U. S. 69 , 130 U. S. 74 . Cf. Southern Ry. Co. v. Bennett
    Search
  37. ground that the verdict is too small or too large is not subject to review on writ of error or appeal. Railroad Co. v. Fraloff
    Search
  38. Wabash Ry. Co. v. McDaniels
    Search
  39. Fitzgerald & Mallory Construction Co. v. Fitzgerald
    Search
  40. Luckenbach S.S. Co. v. United
    Search
  41. Barr v. Gratz
    Search
  42. Railroad Co. v. Fraloff
    Search
  43. Terre Haute & Indiana Ry. Co. v. Struble
    Search
  44. Fishburn v. Chicago
    Search
  45. S. 491 trial in actions at law, serving to distinguish them from suits in equity and admiralty, See Parsons v. Bedford
    Search
  46. U.S. Supreme Court Dimick v. Schiedt
    Search
  47. Thompson v. Utah
    Search
  48. of Brown v. Seymour
    Search
  49. Burton v. Baynes
    Search
  50. South Carolina. McCoy v. Lemon
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial