F. Browne Gregg, Sr., and Juanita O. Gregg - Page 15




                                       - 15 -                                         
          injuries consists of certain remarks that petitioner’s counsel              
          made in closing arguments in the third jury trial.  Although                
          petitioners have neglected to favor us with citations to the                
          record source of these remarks (which petitioners have                      
          paraphrased on brief), our independent perusals of the lengthy              
          record have brought to light the following remarks in closing               
          arguments in the USI litigation, which we infer are the remarks             
          upon which petitioners seek to rely:                                        
                    USI interfered * * * with * * * [petitioner’s]                    
               relationship [with the Leesburg Bank], because after it                
               learned that the dividends had been assigned to the                    
               bank, it wouldn’t let the dividends go to the bank.                    
               They just hid them, sat on them like a dog in a manger.                
               They couldn’t cash them, they just held them.  Well, we                
               know that that caused problems with Gregg’s                            
               relationship with the bank.  Thereafter, when he tried                 
               to make loans, he was turned down by the bank.  We                     
               can’t tell you what the damage amount is, but they                     
               damaged him, they wronged him and the damages should be                
               one dollar nominal damages.                                            
                         *    *    *    *    *    *    *                              
               The one dollar on the interference claim will justify                  
               your going into the punishment aspect of it and then                   
               you can allow punitive damages that will get their                     
               attention.                                                             
               From these remarks, it seems clear that the injury                     
          complained of was to petitioner’s business relationship with the            
          Leesburg Bank and to his prospective economic advantage in being            
          able to borrow money there.                                                 
               Ultimately, the jury returned a verdict awarding petitioner            
          $43,050 compensatory damages and $18.5 million punitive damages,            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011