Walton v. Maguire
Before: Cope
Synopsis
Where the Court below refuses a new trial asked on the ground that the evidence does not sustain the finding and judgment, that Court acts in the exercise of a sound legal discretion, and the Supreme Court will not interfere unless there was an abuse of discretion.
Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Baldwin, J. concurring.
The question in this case relates to the propriety of an order refusing a new trial, and the ground chiefly relied upon for a reversal is the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision. In making the order, the Court acted in the exercise of a sound legal discretion, and upon the evidence embodied in the record we cannot undertake to say that this discretion ivas abused. Our interference, under the circumstances, would be a departure from the rule upon which we have always acted in such cases.
There is nothing in the other point made; and the judgment is therefore affirmed.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)