Circuit split · civil procedure
Whether a federal court sitting in diversity may itself reduce a constitutionally excessive punitive damages award to the maximum permitted by due process instead of ordering a new trial or remittitur
1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.
- Freund v. Nycomed Amersham326 F3D 1070
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · April 22, 2003
“1 In so doing, my colleagues expand the scope of a federal court’s power in a diversity action beyond permissible bounds, produce a result that is contrary to both Adams and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and create a circuit split in the process.” — Acknowledges a circuit split
Empirical analysis of this case →
The other side of the split
Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.
- On the other side · 3d Cir.Simmons v. City of Philadelphia947 F.2d 1042
“City of Philadelphia, 947 F.2d 1042 , 1085-1087 (3d Cir.1991) (Becker, J.) (applying Pennsylvania substantive rule preventing waiver of municipalities’ sovereign immunity and allowing municipality to raise sovereign immunity in 50(b) motion notwithstanding failure of municipality to raise immunity in 50(a) motion).” — Freund v. Nycomed Amersham, acknowledging the split
What the split turns on
- Doctrines & tests:
- Rule 50(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ·
- Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- Constitutional provisions:
- Fourteenth Amendment
Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. Counter-side decisions are extracted from the acknowledging opinions' own text and linked only when the citation resolves in this corpus. See all circuit splits.