Remittitur: Difference between revisions
removed Category:Legal terminology; added Category:American legal terminology using HotCat |
added Category:Civil procedure legal terminology using HotCat |
||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
[[Category:American legal terminology]] |
[[Category:American legal terminology]] |
||
[[Category:Civil procedure]] |
[[Category:Civil procedure]] |
||
[[Category:Civil procedure legal terminology]] |
|||
Revision as of 18:59, 29 July 2019
A remittitur is a ruling by a judge (usually upon motion to reduce or throw out a jury verdict) lowering the amount of damages granted by a jury in a civil case. Usually, this is because the amount awarded exceeded the amount demanded. The term is sometimes used for a reduction in awarded damages even when the amount awarded did not exceed the amount demanded, but is otherwise considered excessive. An example of the latter is the high-profile file-sharing court case Capitol v. Thomas.
If the motion is granted, the plaintiff may either accept the reduced verdict or submit to a new trial restricted to the matter of damages.
The term is also sometimes used in place of "remand" or a mandate—that is, moving a case from a higher court to a lower court.[1] Notably, under California law, the Court of Appeal issues a remittitur after an appeal is heard and decided. In contrast, the U.S. federal Courts of Appeals issue a mandate.
See also
- Additur is a raising of the jury verdict. It is not allowed in the United States federal system due to Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474 (1935),[2] but certain states continue to allow it.
References
- ^ [1]
- ^ "Dimick v. Scheidt, 293 U.S. 474 (1935)". Google Scholar. Retrieved 2010-10-24.