Procedural Posture
Defendant sought review of the decision of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which granted plaintiff’s motion for a new trial in a breach of contract action.
Overview: what is an eeoc charge
Plaintiff filed an action for breach of contract. The trial court reversed the jury’s verdict for defendant and granted plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. Defendant appealed and on appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The court found that in the trial court’s charge to the jury, the trial court had referred to evidence which had been given on the trial and authorized the jury to consider whether plaintiff had ratified certain acts of defendant which were relied upon as acts which constituted a breach of contract. The court found that the trial court had held that was error and the court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision. The court held that the general rule was not applicable in the case because the trial judge had the same opportunity to see the witnesses, to judge their credibility, and the degree of weight which ought to be given to their evidence, as the jury had, and where the evidence was conflicting, the court would not have interfered with the trial court’s decision unless there had been abuse.
Outcome
The court affirmed the decision of the trial court and found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it granted plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.
SbNation 