Carlin v. Parkview Service Company

7 Citing cases

  1. Carlson v. Gillie, 94-0585 (1997)

    C.A. 94-0585 (R.I. Super. Mar. 19, 1997)

    The trial justice must review all the material evidence, passing upon its weight and credibility. Carlin v. Parkview Service, 625 A.2d 212 (R.I. 1993) (Citation omitted.); Tammarino v. Cranston Tennis Club, 416 A.2d 698 (R.I. 1980).

  2. Cicilline v. Ford Motor Credit Company

    751 A.2d 1278 (R.I. 2000)   Cited 4 times

    If, however, "the evidence is evenly balanced so that reasonable people could arrive at different results, the trial justice must deny the motion." Carlin v. Parkview Service Co., 625 A.2d 212, 212 (R.I. 1993) (citing Pimental v. D'Allaire, 114 R.I. 153, 158, 330 A.2d 62, 65 (1975)). "This Court will affirm a trial justice's decision on a motion for a new trial as long as the trial justice conducts the appropriate analysis, does not overlook or misconceive material evidence, and is not otherwise clearly wrong." Morrocco v. Piccardi, 674 A.2d 380, 382 (R.I. 1996) (citing International Depository, Inc. v. State, 603 A.2d 1119, 1123 (R.I. 1992)).

  3. In re Werke

    8 S.W.3d 326 (Tex. 2000)   Cited 14 times
    Arguing that trial judges should state reason for granting a new trial

    which the order is made or permit intelligent review by an appellate court."); ND. R. Civ. P. 59 (f) ("With all orders granting or refusing a new trial, the judge shall file a written memorandum concisely stating the different grounds on which the ruling is based);. Antal v. Olde Worlde Prods., Inc., 9 Ohio St.3d 144, 459 N.E.2d 223, 225 (1984) ("[M]eaningful appellate review is impossible where the trial court grants a new trial and fails to specify the reasons beyond a conclusory statement."); Dodson v. Henderson Properties, Inc., 708 P.2d 1064, 1065 (Okla. 1985) ("[Decisions to grant new trials are reviewed for] sound legal discretion in accordance with recognized principles of law, rather than an arbitrary discretion exercised at will."); ORE. REV. STAT § 19.430 (1999) ("If an appeal is taken from an order of the trial court granting a new trial on its own initiative, the order shall be affirmed on appeal only on grounds set forth in the order . . . ."); PA. R. Civ. P. 227.1 (e); Carlin v. Parkview Serv. Co., 625 A.2d 212 (R.I. 1993); S.D. Coo. LAWS ANN. § 15-6-59 (d) (1998); TENN. R. Civ. P. 59.05; UT. R. CIV. P. 59 (d); VT. R. Civ. P. 59 (d); WASH. SUP. CT. CIV. R. 59 (f); Simmons v. Koeteeuw, 5 Wn. App. 572, 489 P.2d 364, 366 (1971) ("The trial court also granted the new trial upon the ground substantial justice was not done. No definite reasons of law and fact were set forth in the order as required by CR 59 (f)."); W. VA. R. Civ. P. 59 (d); Krolikowski v. Chicago Northwestern Transp. Co., 89 Wis.2d 573, 278 N.W.2d 865, 868 (1979) ("The order granting a new trial in the interest of justice must contain the reasons and bases for the general statement contained therein."); Wy. R. Civ. P. 59 (d).

  4. Silva v. Spooner

    692 A.2d 336 (R.I. 1997)   Cited 6 times

    And when, as here, the evidence is such that reasonable minds could fairly come to different conclusions, we shall not disturb a trial justice's denial of a new-trial motion.See Carlin v. Parkview Service Co., 625 A.2d 212 (R.I. 1993). Accordingly we affirm the judgment and dismiss Silva's appeal.

  5. Fuoco v. Polisena

    C.A. No. PC-2013-5356 (R.I. Super. Aug. 16, 2018)

    Additionally, this Court holds that "the verdict is contrary to the fair preponderance of the evidence and fails . . . to respond to the merits of the controversy[.]" Carlin v. Parkview Serv. Co., 625 A.2d 212, 213 (R.I. 1993). Accordingly, this Court would, absent this Court's ruling on Defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law, grant Defendant a new trial on all issues.

  6. Romano v. Guzman

    C.A. No. PC/04-0613 (R.I. Super. May. 16, 2007)

    If the verdicts are grossly inadequate, then "substantial justice between the parties would not be achieved and the verdicts would not respond truly to the real merits of the controversies on the evidence submitted." Id. However, where "the evidence is evenly balanced so that reasonable people could arrive at different results, the trial justice must deny the motion."Id. (quoting Carlin v. Parkview Service Co., 625 A.2d 212, 212 (R.I. 1993)). Plaintiff asserts that undisputed medical affidavits demonstrated that his medical expenses amounted to $13,485.16. He further contends that Defendant's expert ignored certain documentation to improperly conclude that Plaintiff's CTS was not caused by the collision.

  7. Cannata v. Labutti

    No. PC 99-3916 (R.I. Super. Mar. 12, 2004)

    If "the evidence is evenly balanced so that reasonable people could arrive at different results, the trial justice must deny the motion."Cicilline, 751 A.2d at 1280 (citing Carlin v. Parkview Service Co., 625 A.2d 212 (R.I. 1993)). Plaintiff had a complicated medical history. There had been prior accidents, subsequent "events," and a compensation claim.