In an action brought under the Federal Odometer Act, district court judgment denying defendant’s motion for a new trial is affirmed where: 1) the damages award against defendant is supported by substantial evidence; 2) the court did not err in refusing to bifurcate the case into liability and damages proceedings as it was a relatively simple case involving only one claim and one defendant that did not warrant bifurcation; 3) there was no error in the court’s verdict form or in the jury instructions; 4) the court did not abuse its discretion denying defendant’s motions for continuance; 5) the court’s disputed comments during trial did not prejudice the jury or constitute judicial misconduct; and 6) the court did not err in awarding attorneys’ fees award or in awarding plaintiff prejudgment interest.
Appellate InformationAppeal from the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.Submitted: March 13, 2009Filed: May 14, 2009
JudgesBefore LOKEN, Chief Judge, EBEL and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges.Opinion by CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge.
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
