This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
- The Plaintiff appealed the denial of a motion for a new trial, which was based on the absence of a recess instruction to the jury.
Procedural History
- [Not applicable or not found]
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued for a new trial based on the trial court's failure to provide a recess instruction to the jury.
- Defendant-Appellee: Supported the proposed summary disposition to affirm the judgment of the district court.
Legal Issues
- Whether the absence of a recess instruction to the jury warrants a new trial.
Disposition
- The appeal for a new trial based on the absence of a recess instruction to the jury was denied, affirming the judgment of the district court.
Reasons
-
The Court, consisting of Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee, and Judges Kristina Bogardus and Jane B. Yohalem, unanimously decided to affirm the district court's judgment. The decision was based on the Plaintiff's failure to file a memorandum opposing the summary affirmance within the given timeframe, despite the Court's notice of proposed summary disposition suggesting affirmance of the lower court's judgment (para 1).
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.