Williams v. United Ins. Co. of America

11 Citing cases

  1. Marshall Durbin Food v. Equitable Life Assur

    834 F.2d 949 (11th Cir. 1987)   Cited 3 times

    To recover for fraud under Alabama law, which governs the substantive aspects of this diversity case, the plaintiff must establish that Equitable represented that it would calculate the dividend with respect to the Final Policy Period in the same manner as it had in the past, and that such promise was made with the present intent not to perform. See Williams v. United Insurance Company of America, 634 F.2d 813, 815 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981). After careful review of the record, we believe that, at trial, Durbin presented sufficient evidence of actionable fraud by Equitable to satisfy each of the requisite elements for a fraud claim under Alabama law.

  2. Grandison v. Smith

    779 F.2d 637 (11th Cir. 1986)   Cited 10 times
    In Grandison, the defendant failed to notify the plaintiff employees of their termination, and thus did not give them adequate notice of the opportunity for a hearing.

    . . ." Boeing Co. v. Shipman. . . .'" Williams v. United Insurance Co. of America, 634 F.2d 813, 815 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981). Likewise, as to the denial of the motion for a new trial, on appeal "we are not reviewing `sufficiency' in its technical sense. . . . we are reviewing whether the district judge has abused his judicial discretion in denying a new trial or whether as a matter of law the denial of a new trial was erroneous because there was an `absolute absence of evidence to support the jury's verdict.'"

  3. Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp.

    722 F.2d 677 (11th Cir. 1984)   Cited 410 times
    Finding no abuse of discretion in trial court's refusal to grant Rule 60(b) relief from judgment resulting from failure to comply with discovery requests and related orders

    We find in the affirmative. See Terry v. Raymond Int'l, Inc., 658 F.2d 398, 404 (5th Cir. 1981); Williams v. Insurance Co. of North America, 634 F.2d 813, 815 (5th Cir. 1981); Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374 (5th Cir. 1969) ( en banc).FRCP 60(b)(6)

  4. J H Auto Trim Co., v. Bellefonte Ins. Co.

    677 F.2d 1365 (11th Cir. 1982)   Cited 30 times
    Reinstating jury verdict, despite trial judge’s disbelief of witnesses’ testimony, because making "credibility choices" is "precisely what juries are for"

    Since the sufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict is a question of law, the standard of review on appeal is the same as that applied by the trial court in making its initial ruling. Williams v. United Insurance Co. of America, 634 F.2d 813, 815 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Bucon Construction Co., 430 F.2d 420, 423 (5th Cir. 1970). Boeing Co. v. Shipman sets forth the criteria for evaluating such motions.

  5. Terry v. Raymond Intern., Inc.

    658 F.2d 398 (5th Cir. 1982)   Cited 51 times
    In Terry v. Raymond International, Inc., 658 F.2d 398, 402-03 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 928, 102 S.Ct. 1975, 72 L.Ed.2d 443 (1982), and Lapeyrouse v. Texaco, Inc., 693 F.2d 581, 585 (5th Cir. 1982), the court held that the sole test of personal jurisdiction in federal question cases is one of constitutionality.

    No matter how persuasive we might find Manitowoc's arguments, this court is not at liberty to set the jury's verdict aside if that verdict could have been reached by reasonable men in the exercise of impartial judgment. See Williams v. Insurance Co. of North America, 634 F.2d 813, 815 (5th Cir. 1981); Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374 (5th Cir. 1969) (en banc). The record demonstrates that the jury's verdict cannot be disturbed.

  6. Jacobs v. Deaton, Inc.

    654 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1981)   Cited 1 times

    So viewed, if there is substantial evidence supporting their claims a directed verdict should have been denied. Williams v. United Insurance Company of America, 634 F.2d 813, 815 (5th Cir. 1981). Our task, therefore, is to examine the record to determine whether, viewed as required, the evidence supporting the plaintiffs' claims is of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair minded jurors in exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions.

  7. Roberts v. Marino

    656 F.2d 1112 (5th Cir. 1981)   Cited 17 times

    This Court, and the trial court at the time of the original motion for directed verdict, must examine all the evidence "in the light and with all reasonable inferences most favorable to the party opposed to the motion." Williams v. United Insurance Co. of America, 634 F.2d 813, 815 (5th Cir. 1981). This Court on review does not reweigh the evidence.

  8. Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Makover

    654 F.2d 1120 (5th Cir. 1981)   Cited 45 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the injured party had standing to appeal the declaratory judgment in favor of the insurance company and noting that it was “decisive” to the holding that Dairyland named the injured appellants in its declaratory judgment action

    `[I]f there is substantial evidence opposed to the motions, that is, evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, the motions should be denied, and the case submitted to the jury.'" Williams v. United Ins. Co. of America, 634 F.2d 813, 815 (5th Cir. 1981), quoting Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374 (5th Cir. 1969) (en banc). A trial court may, in the exercise of its sound discretion, set aside a verdict and grant a new trial if, in its opinion, "`the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence * * * or will result in a miscarriage of justice, even though there may be substantial evidence which would prevent the direction of a verdict.'"

  9. Weingart v. Allen O'Hara, Inc.

    654 F.2d 1096 (5th Cir. 1981)   Cited 41 times
    Reversing judgment as a matter of law that release barred claim because fact issue existed as to whether parties intended to include certain types of claims within the scope of the release

    `[I]f there is substantial evidence opposed to the motions, that is, evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, the motion should be denied, and the case submitted to the jury.'" Williams v. United Ins. Co. of America, 634 F.2d 813, 815 (5th Cir. 1981), quoting Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374 (5th Cir. 1969). A trial court may, in the exercise of its sound discretion, set aside a verdict and grant a new trial if, in its opinion, "`the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence * * * or will result in a miscarriage of justice, even though there may be substantial evidence which would prevent the direction of a verdict.'"

  10. Bobb v. Modern Products, Inc.

    648 F.2d 1051 (5th Cir. 1981)   Cited 53 times
    Finding no error in trial court's decision to disallow deposition testimony where deposition was taken without proper notice to or cross-examination by opposing party

    The standard on review for consideration of a directed verdict is the same test that governs a district court's consideration of the motion — whether viewing the evidence with all reasonable inferences most favorable to the party opposing the motion, there is substantial evidence opposed to the motion. Williams v. United Ins. Co. of America, 634 F.2d 813 (5th Cir. 1981). Unless the facts and inferences are so strong and overwhelmingly in favor of the moving party that reasonable men could not arrive at a contrary verdict, the motion should be denied.