Currens v. Hampton

10 Citing cases

  1. Nye v. BNSF Ry. Co.

    2018 OK 51 (Okla. 2018)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that "[o]rdinarily, a reviewing court will not reverse based upon alleged attorney misconduct unless such conduct ‘substantially influences the verdict or denies the defendant a fair trial’ "

    Stated another way—neither the trial court nor this Court will sit as thirteenth juror and substitute its opinion for that of a jury merely because the court could have decided or viewed disputed material fact questions differently. See Currens v. Hampton, 1997 OK 58, ¶ 9, 939 P.2d 1138, 1141. Those general principles control our review here.

  2. Elmore v. Doenges Bros. Ford, Inc.

    21 P.3d 65 (Okla. Civ. App. 2000)   Cited 17 times

    A jury verdict may be set aside as excessive or a remittitur may be granted only if it appears that "the verdict is so excessive as to strike mankind, at first blush, as being beyond all measure unreasonable and outrageous, showing the jury to have been actuated by passion, partiality, prejudice or corruption." Currens v. Hampton, 1997 OK 58, ¶ 10, 939 P.2d 1138, 1141; see also LeFlore, 1985 OK 72, ¶ 40, 708 P.2d at 1077. "An appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the jury in its exercise as a fact-finding body; it must consider the evidence most favorable to the plaintiffs as establishing the facts concerning the excessiveness of the verdict."

  3. Clabaugh v. Grant

    347 P.3d 1044 (Okla. Civ. App. 2014)   Cited 2 times

    Thus, under the facts of this case, we hold the damage award is unaffected by the reversal of Plaintiff's fraud verdict.¶ 22 In Currens v. Hampton, 1997 OK 58, 939 P.2d 1138, the Court reiterated:We have traditionally held that an appellate court has no right to place a limitation on the amount of a jury verdict unless it is convinced that the amount bears no relation whatsoever to the evidence.

  4. Racher v. Westlake Nursing Home Ltd.

    871 F.3d 1152 (10th Cir. 2017)   Cited 116 times
    Holding new trial was not warranted where judge overruled objection to improper argument but properly instructed the jury on the difference between compensatory and punitive damages

    To determine whether a damage award is excessive, an appellate court must look at the evidence and must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Currens v. Hampton, 1997 OK 58, ¶ 10, 939 P.2d 1138, 1141 (Okla. 1997). Further, "Oklahoma recognizes a broad jury discretion to determine the amount of damages for intangible injuries such as damage to reputation, humiliation, etc."

  5. Clabaugh v. Grant

    2015 OK Civ. App. 33 (Okla. Civ. App. 2015)

    Thus, under the facts of this case, we hold the damage award is unaffected by the reversal of Plaintiff's fraud verdict. ¶22 In Currens v. Hampton, 1997 OK 58, 939 P.2d 1138, the Court reiterated: We have traditionally held that an appellate court has no right to place a limitation on the amount of a jury verdict unless it is convinced that the amount bears no relation whatsoever to the evidence.

  6. Breen v. Gardner

    261 P.3d 617 (Okla. Civ. App. 2011)

    ¶ 14 The OADC argues that the prejudicial effect of the trooper's testimony is demonstrated by the ratio of the verdict to the amount of Breen's medical expenses caused by the accident, which it claims to be approximately 50:1. A jury verdict may be set aside as excessive or a remittitur may be granted only if it appears that "the verdict is so excessive as to strike mankind, at first blush, as being beyond all measure unreasonable and outrageous, showing the jury to have been actuated by passion, partiality, prejudice or corruption." Elmore v. Doenges Bros. Ford, Inc., 2001 OK CIV APP 27, If 12, 21 P.3d 65, 70 (citing Currens v. Hampton, 1997 OK 58, ¶ 10, 939 P.2d 1138, 1141). Determination of whether a mistrial or a new trial was warranted based on prejudice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Hutton v. Lowry, 1968 OK 114, ¶ 13, 444 P.2d 812, 814-16 (holding that reference to the defendant's insurance at trial "is harmless unless the defendant's rights are prejudiced thereby" and whether such prejudice has occurred "depends essentially upon the facts and circumstances of each case").

  7. Tsotaddle v. Absentee Shawnee Housing Auth

    20 P.3d 153 (Okla. Civ. App. 2000)   Cited 20 times

    Therefore, this court's examination must be to determine whether the amount bears some reasonable relation to the evidence. Currens v. Hampton, 1997 OK 58, ¶ 10, 939 P.2d 1138, 1141. The record does contain evidence tending to support the award.

  8. Racher v. Westlake Nursing Home Ltd.

    Case No. CIV-13-364-M (W.D. Okla. Dec. 11, 2015)

    Additionally, when making this determination, a court "must consider the evidence most favorable to the plaintiffs as establishing the facts concerning the excessiveness of the verdict." Currens v. Hampton, 939 P.2d 1138, 1141 (Okla. 1997). Having carefully reviewed the parties' submissions, and having heard all of the testimony and seen all of the evidence presented during the trial, the Court finds that the verdict in this case was not excessive. Specifically, the Court finds that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the jury's award.

  9. Hill v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc.

    Case No. CIV-13-429-RAW (E.D. Okla. Mar. 3, 2015)

    The Supreme Court of Oklahoma has stated that "[g]iven the nature of damages for wrongful death, if the amount awarded is not flagrantly outrageous and extravagant, the court cannot undertake to draw a line at a certain amount since the court cannot ascertain the excess." Currens v. Hampton, 939 P.2d 1138, 1141 (Okla.1997). After considering the jury's verdict in light of the principles recited above, the court declines to grant a new trial or a remittitur either.

  10. BECK v. WORLDWIDE READERS SERVICE, INC.

    NO. CIV-07-375-D (W.D. Okla. Jul. 3, 2008)

    Damages for pain and suffering cannot be precisely measured; however, the inability to determine a precise measurement does not preclude an award of such damages. Currens v. Hampton, 939 P. 2d 1138, 1141 (Okla. 1997), citing White v. McDonald 447 P.2d 746, 755 (Okla. 1968). Plaintiff's medical records and his testimony reflect that his injuries have resulted in significant pain; furthermore, his testimony establishes that he continues to endure pain in his hip at the present time, approximately 19 months after the accident.