Lian v. Stalick, 106 Wash. App. 811 (2001)

Citation: Lian v. Stalick, 106 Wash. App. 811 (2001)
Parent Document: Lian v. Stalick, 106 Wash. App. 811 (2001)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2001-06-19
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4931615/lian-v-stalick/ ↗

Full Text

766 chars

Now we discuss Mr. Stalick’s motion for reconsideration/new trial on the issue of damages. If the damages award is tenable, further proceedings can focus solely on liability. We review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a CR 59(a) motion for reconsideration or new trial *824under an abuse of discretion standard. Kohfeld v. United Pac. Ins. Co., 85 Wn. App. 34, 40, 931 P.2d 911 (1997). “A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly unreasonable, or based on untenable grounds or reasons.” Id. Mr. Stalick argues three grounds for a new trial: first, excessiveness indicating the judgment resulted from passion or prejudice, CR 59(a)(5); second, insufficient evidence, CR 59(a)(7); and last, a lack of substantial justice, CR 59(a)(9).

Other Sections in This Document (99)

Full Text