Difference between revisions of "Remittur"
(a start) |
(Procedurally, the trial court conditions an acceptance by plaintiff of a reduction in the jury verdict as a condition for not ordering a entirely new trial.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Remittitur is a reduction in a jury award at trial, as implicitly allowed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and supported by the treatise see 11 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2815 (3d ed. 2012). Some question whether it should be allowed in light of the [[Seventh Amendment]] to the [[U.S. Constitution]]. | Remittitur is a reduction in a jury award at trial, as implicitly allowed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and supported by the treatise see 11 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2815 (3d ed. 2012). Some question whether it should be allowed in light of the [[Seventh Amendment]] to the [[U.S. Constitution]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Procedurally, the trial court conditions an acceptance by plaintiff of a reduction in the jury verdict as a condition for not ordering a entirely new trial. | ||
Remittitur is not considered to be appropriate merely because a judge would have awarded a different amount than the jury. ''Lincoln Composites, Inc. v. Firetrace USA, LLC'', 825 F.3d 453, 459 (8th Cir. 2016). “The court orders a remittitur when it believes the jury’s award is unreasonable on the facts.” ''Ross v. Kan. City Power & Light Co.'', 293 F.3d 1041, 1049 (8th Cir. 2002) (quoting ''Johansen v. Combustion Eng’g, Inc.'', 170 F.3d 1320, 1331 (11th Cir. 1999)). | Remittitur is not considered to be appropriate merely because a judge would have awarded a different amount than the jury. ''Lincoln Composites, Inc. v. Firetrace USA, LLC'', 825 F.3d 453, 459 (8th Cir. 2016). “The court orders a remittitur when it believes the jury’s award is unreasonable on the facts.” ''Ross v. Kan. City Power & Light Co.'', 293 F.3d 1041, 1049 (8th Cir. 2002) (quoting ''Johansen v. Combustion Eng’g, Inc.'', 170 F.3d 1320, 1331 (11th Cir. 1999)). | ||
Revision as of 02:23, August 31, 2019
Remittitur is a reduction in a jury award at trial, as implicitly allowed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and supported by the treatise see 11 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2815 (3d ed. 2012). Some question whether it should be allowed in light of the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Procedurally, the trial court conditions an acceptance by plaintiff of a reduction in the jury verdict as a condition for not ordering a entirely new trial.
Remittitur is not considered to be appropriate merely because a judge would have awarded a different amount than the jury. Lincoln Composites, Inc. v. Firetrace USA, LLC, 825 F.3d 453, 459 (8th Cir. 2016). “The court orders a remittitur when it believes the jury’s award is unreasonable on the facts.” Ross v. Kan. City Power & Light Co., 293 F.3d 1041, 1049 (8th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johansen v. Combustion Eng’g, Inc., 170 F.3d 1320, 1331 (11th Cir. 1999)).
A remittitur is used “where the verdict is so grossly excessive as to shock the judicial conscience.” Lincoln Composites, 825 F.3d at 459 (quoting Bennett v. Riceland Foods, Inc., 721 F.3d 546, 553 (8th Cir. 2013)).
On appeal, a denial of a motion for remittitur is reviewed under the highly deferential standard of a manifest abuse of discretion. Eckerberg v. Inter-State Studio & Publ’g Co., 860 F.3d 1079, 1087 (8th Cir. 2017).