Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Remittitur

Discipline
Institution
Publication Year
Publication
Publication Type
File Type

Articles 1 - 20 of 20

Full-Text Articles in Law

Standards Of Review In Texas, W. Wendell Hall, Ryan G. Anderson Nov 2019

Standards Of Review In Texas, W. Wendell Hall, Ryan G. Anderson

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming


Statutory Caps And Judicial Review Of Damages, Colleen P. Murphy Jul 2015

Statutory Caps And Judicial Review Of Damages, Colleen P. Murphy

Akron Law Review

In this article, I examine two procedural questions arising from the use of statutory caps. First, how should a statutory cap affect judicial review of awards for possible excessiveness? Second, when a legislature has imposed a total cap on a combination of different types of damages (such as on the total of punitive and compensatory damages or on the total of economic and noneconomic damages), how should courts allocate multiple awards to conform to the cap?...With respect to multiple awards that exceed a total cap on different types of damages, I suggest that the appropriate way to conform multiple awards …


Summary Of Fulbrook V. Allstate Ins. Co., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 33 (Jun. 4, 2015), Walter Fick Jun 2015

Summary Of Fulbrook V. Allstate Ins. Co., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 33 (Jun. 4, 2015), Walter Fick

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that appellant’s counsel’s “technical difficulties,” with regard to e-mails and case files, was an insufficient basis on which to recall remittitur, because the technical difficulties were unrelated to Nevada’s electronic filing system, which exclusively provides required notifications to counsel.


Civil Practice And Procedure, Andrew P. Sherrod, Jaime B. Wisegarver Nov 2014

Civil Practice And Procedure, Andrew P. Sherrod, Jaime B. Wisegarver

University of Richmond Law Review

This article surveys recent significant developments in Virginia civil practice and procedure. Part I of this article discusses opinions of the Supreme Court of Virginia from June 2013 through June 2014 addressing noteworthy civil procedure topics. Part II addresses amendments to the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia concerning procedural issues during the same period. PartIII discusses legislation enacted by the Virginia General Assembly during its 2014 session that relates to civil practice.


Civil Practice And Procedure, Andrew P. Sherrod, Jaime B. Wisegarver Nov 2013

Civil Practice And Procedure, Andrew P. Sherrod, Jaime B. Wisegarver

University of Richmond Law Review

This article surveys recent significant developments in Virginia civil practice and procedure. The article discusses opinions of theSupreme Court of Virginia from June 2012 through June 2013 addressing civil procedure topics, significant amendments to the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia concerning procedural issues during the same period, and legislation enacted by the Virginia General Assembly during its 2013 session that relates to civil practice.


Lebron V. Gottlieb And Noneconomic Damages For Medical Malpractice Liability: Closing The Door On Caps, But Opening It To New Possibilities, Jacquelyn M. Hill Apr 2012

Lebron V. Gottlieb And Noneconomic Damages For Medical Malpractice Liability: Closing The Door On Caps, But Opening It To New Possibilities, Jacquelyn M. Hill

Chicago-Kent Law Review

In Lebron v. Gottlieb, decided in February of 2010, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down Public Act 94-677, finding that its cap on noneconomic damages violated the Illinois Constitution's separation of powers clause. The Court primarily relied upon the remittitur doctrine to come to its conclusion. This case comment addresses the Lebron decision and its rationale, particularly its focus on the remittitur doctrine. Additionally, this comment addresses the following concepts: 1) the background and history of attempts to limit common law liability in tort law in Illinois; 2) other jurisdictions' responses to statutory caps; 3) the Lebron majority's distinctions regarding …


Lebron V. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital: Why The Court Erred In Finding That Caps On Jury Awards Violate Separation Of Powers, Ryan Kenneth June Feb 2011

Lebron V. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital: Why The Court Erred In Finding That Caps On Jury Awards Violate Separation Of Powers, Ryan Kenneth June

Ryan Kenneth June

This Note discusses Lebron v. Gottlieb, an Illinois Supreme Court decision which found caps on damages in medical malpractice cases unconstitutional. The Note explores the background of Lebron and the analysis provided by the majority and dissenting opinions before analyzing the court’s finding and discussing the case's impact. This Note concludes that the court’s reasoning was flawed: not only should it be rejected by other states, but it should be overturned in Illinois. Contrary to the court’s holding, the Note argues that caps on damages are not a form of legislative remittitur. Further, remittitur is not an inherent function of …


Remitting The Remittitur, Mark G. Haug, Devon J. Steinmeyer Apr 2007

Remitting The Remittitur, Mark G. Haug, Devon J. Steinmeyer

mark g haug

The purpose of this article is a review of the statistical analysis performed by Judge Jack B. Weinstein in Geressy v. Digital Equipment Corp. in determining whether damages awarded by a jury were excessive under New York’s statutory “material deviation” standard. Despite a concern that the sample population was materially skewed, Judge Weinstein based his analysis upon a normal (“bell”) curve and determined that the award was a material deviation. In this article, we examine the methodology of Judge Weinstein’s analysis and accept his invitation to make refinements that will improve the level of confidence that may be placed on …


Due Process And Punitive Damages: The Error Of Federal Excessiveness Jurisprudence, A. Benjamin Spencer Jan 2006

Due Process And Punitive Damages: The Error Of Federal Excessiveness Jurisprudence, A. Benjamin Spencer

ExpressO

The Supreme Court, in a line of several cases over the past decade, has established a rigorous federal constitutional excessiveness review for punitive damages awards based on the Due Process Clause. As a matter of substantive due process, says the Court, punitive awards must be evaluated by three “guideposts” set forth in BMW of North America v. Gore: the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct, the ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, and a comparison of the amount of punitive damages to any “civil or criminal penalties that could be imposed for comparable misconduct.” Following up on this pronouncement …


Revisiting Standards Of Review In Civil Appeals., W. Wendell Hall Jan 1993

Revisiting Standards Of Review In Civil Appeals., W. Wendell Hall

St. Mary's Law Journal

Applying and defining the accurate standard of review determines how likely an appeal will be successful. While the proper standard of review may be easy to identify, applying the standard of review to a case is often problematic. The standards define the interactions between trial and appellate courts by distributing the power of review throughout the judicial branch. The standards of review also limit a court’s authority to determine an error by a trial court, and whether the error warrants reversal. The standard sets the requirements of substantive law and provides a means for appellate judges to weigh arguments. This …


Proof Of Attorney's Fees In Texas., Scott A. Brister Jan 1993

Proof Of Attorney's Fees In Texas., Scott A. Brister

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Texas, the complex and confusing rules defining proof of attorney’s fees require simplification. Texas, like many other states, follows the American Rule, meaning the plaintiff and defendant each pay their own attorney’s fees. The United States is the only common-law jurisdiction and virtually the only industrialized democracy following the American Rule. Two primary justifications support following the American Rule. First, the American Rule supports individuals seeking a judicial remedy by removing the obstacle of paying an opponent’s legal fees. Second, it reduces potential litigation, attendant time and expense that would be necessary to dispute legal fees if they were …


Remittiturs (And Additurs) In The Federal Courts: An Evaluation With Suggested Alternatives, Irene D. Johnson Jan 1988

Remittiturs (And Additurs) In The Federal Courts: An Evaluation With Suggested Alternatives, Irene D. Johnson

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The use of remittitur and additur in American jurisprudence is based upon Justice Story's "very limits of the law" in conjunction with the constraints of the seventh amendment. This author states that since additur is not presently being used as a procedural devise and remittitur is premised on the same principles, the current use of remittitur should be eliminated.


Remittitur Practice In The Federal Courts, Irene D. Johnson Jan 1976

Remittitur Practice In The Federal Courts, Irene D. Johnson

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The first section of this Note examines and evaluates the mechanics of remittitur procedure in the federal courts. The second section focuses on the major unresolved issue of remittitur procedure: whether a plaintiff who elects to remit is entitled to appellate review of the remittitur order. The final section of the Note evaluate remitting-plaintiff appeal procedures and suggest some ways in which federal remittitur procedure might be made more efficient and more responsive to policy objectives.


Riley V. Superior Court Of Los Angeles County, Jesse W. Carter Nov 1957

Riley V. Superior Court Of Los Angeles County, Jesse W. Carter

Jesse Carter Opinions

An administratrix's argument that because a guardianship had terminated, the guardian had no capacity to act for the estate, was without merit because the guardianship did not terminate until the judgment of the district court became final.


Constitutional Law - Right To A Trial By Jury-Power Of Trial Court To Use Additur, Robert W. Steele S.Ed. Nov 1957

Constitutional Law - Right To A Trial By Jury-Power Of Trial Court To Use Additur, Robert W. Steele S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The plaintiff brought suit against two defendants, claiming $56,000 for personal injuries suffered in an accident. Upon return of a jury verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $3,000, the plaintiff moved for a new trial on the issue of damages. The trial court denied the motion on condition that defendants consent to the entry of a judgment of $9,830.92. Both defendants consented. Plaintiff appealed on the ground that the use of an additur constituted an infringement of his constitutional guarantee of a jury trial. Held/em>, affirmed. Conditioning the denial of a new trial upon the defendant's consent …


People V. Randazzo [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter Apr 1957

People V. Randazzo [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter

Jesse Carter Opinions

Defendant's complaint that erroneous instructions were given did not authorize the recall of remittitur, for it was a complaint of an error of law only, and remittitur could not be recalled to correct judicial error or mistake of law.


Hall V. Superior Court Of Los Angeles County [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter Oct 1955

Hall V. Superior Court Of Los Angeles County [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter

Jesse Carter Opinions

A husband's request for a writ of mandamus to compel a court to fix the amount of permanent alimony he must pay to his wife, who was receiving temporary alimony, was improper and the request was denied.


Excessive Personal Injury Awards; A Problem And A Recommendation, Anthony R. Nardi Jan 1952

Excessive Personal Injury Awards; A Problem And A Recommendation, Anthony R. Nardi

Cleveland State Law Review

An improved, workable, and sensible test for "excessiveness" in the area of personal injury awards must be established. It is fairly easy to confuse "excessive" with the concept of "large" or "high" awards. In some particular instances perhaps relatively larger or higher awards are proper in today's economy. But, the bulk of over a million injury cases is at a level fairly easy to classify and thereby to compensate properly. When proper standards are established, then awards become excessive when they go beyond this just and equitable measure. Classifications and guides for the vast majority of personal injury claims will …


Remittitur In Kentucky, Clarence Cornelius Jan 1940

Remittitur In Kentucky, Clarence Cornelius

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.


Appeal And Error - Reviewability Of An Order Granting A New Trial, Robert M. Warren Dec 1939

Appeal And Error - Reviewability Of An Order Granting A New Trial, Robert M. Warren

Michigan Law Review

When a trial court sets aside a verdict and grants a new trial, the order may or may not be reviewable depending on the jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions which permit a review, the aggrieved party must save an exception to the order and assign this ruling as error when an appeal is ultimately taken from a subsequent appealable decision. In other jurisdictions, he may take an appeal directly from the order.

This comment will discuss (1) the common-law practice which permitted no review of an order granting a new trial; (2) the practice allowing the aggrieved party to save an …