UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-60222
Summary Calendar
LENIS IRENE MULLINS and EVERETT D. MULLINS,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
VERSUS
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
(3:95-CV-178)
April 7, 1999
Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Wal-Mart”) appeals the denial of its
motion for new trial or, in the alternative, a remittitur. We
affirm.
Plaintiffs Lenis Irene Mullins and Everett D. Mullins brought
suit against Wal-Mart to recover damages sustained when Mrs.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
1
Mullins slipped and fell and suffered personal injuries in a Wal-
Mart Store. After jury trial, the jury returned a verdict for
plaintiffs, assessing no damages for Mr. Mullins and $50,000 for
Mrs. Mullins. Wal-Mart moved for new trial or, in the alternative,
for remittitur, contending, inter alia, that the district court
erred in not granting a mistrial on motions made by Wal-Mart during
trial. On appeal, Wal-Mart argues that the district court erred in
denying this motion.
Specifically, Wal-Mart alleges that the jury, prejudiced by
repetitious and leading questions and improper comments by
Plaintiffs' counsel in response to Wal-Mart's objections, returned
a verdict against the weight of the evidence. Further, Wal-Mart
alleges that because they were forced by Plaintiffs' counsel's
egregious conduct to make numerous objections, the jury was led to
believe Wal-Mart had something to hide.
Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wal-Mart's motion for
new trial or, in the alternative, for remittitur. See Hiltgen v.
Sumrall, 47 F.3d 695, 703 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.
2