The court that awarded Rodney King $3.8 million in a civil lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles was the United States District Court for the Central District of California. King sued the city for violating his civil rights during a highly publicized police brutality incident in 1991.
The judge reached a verdict. He proceeded to dictate the memo.
The court citation for the Rodney King case is "United States v. Powell, 955 F.2d 1206 (9th Cir. 1992)."
Yes, "verdict" is an abstract noun because it represents a judgment or decision reached by a court or jury that cannot be physically touched or seen.
That court examined the evidence, concluded that it was insufficient to support the verdict, and on that basis reversed the judgment given to the plaintiff on the verdict, and directed that judgment be entered for the defendant.
The court will set punitive damages for the defendant when it considers that the culprit would learn something from paying more. Maybe compensation awarded to the victim was not entirely adequate, or maybe the perpetrator would benefit from a life lesson.
A court can enter a judgment notwithstanding the verdict when the weight of the evidence does not support the jury's verdict.
The judgment is affirmed.
The judge reached a verdict. He proceeded to dictate the memo.
It means that they have - AFFIRMED THE VERDICT OF THE TRIAL COURT.
It varies in different jurisdictions. In some states, the jury foreperson reads the verdict, in others the court clerk reads the verdict, and in still others, the judge reads the verdict.
They don't "reject" a lower court verdict per se, they can reverse a verdict and remand the case back to the lower court for corrective action based on points of law and rules of legal procedure.
It is called the verdict
The decision of the jury is called a verdict. The decision of a judge is called her ruling or holding.
.... is called a VERDICT (verdicts are rendered by a jury); court decisions are typically called judgements.
The Court can enter a JNOV, if the evidence presented is insufficient to support the verdict as a matter of law. One of the parties may appeal. If there is a legal defect in the trial, the appellate court may reverse the verdict and require the trial court to have a new trial.
They don't "reject" a lower court verdict per se, they can reverse a verdict and remand the case back to the lower court for corrective action based on points of law and rules of legal procedure.
The JURY.