Circuit split · civil procedure
Whether a federal court sitting in diversity may itself reduce a jury's award of future damages to present value (by remittitur) rather than order a new trial.
1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.
- Freund v. Nycomed Amersham347 F3D 752
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · October 21, 2003
“2 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
- 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.