remittitur
Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court
Definitions from Case Law
From 293 U.S. 474 - Dimick v. Schiedt · 1935Most cited · 1,723 citing opinions
the practice of substituting a remission of the excess for a new trial is not without plausible support in the view that what remains is included in the verdict along with the unlawful excess—in that sense that it has been found by the jury—and that the remittitur has the effect of merely lopping off an excrescence.
How the Supreme Court has restated “remittitur”
Each Supreme Court definition of “remittitur,” sized by how often later courts cited it. “Change” is measured by wording overlap with earlier definitions — a rough signal, not a semantic judgment.
How often courts cite the cases defining “remittitur”
Court decisions citing the 3 opinions that defined “remittitur” — 2,264 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining cases as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.
All 3 definitions, chronological · 1829–1968
- 1829·27 U.S. 327 - The President Directors and Company of the Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky v. John Ashley and John Ella[p3]· cited 32×ORIGINAL
That the party would have had a right to remit in the court below cannot be questioned: it is every day's practice sustained by the gravest precedents. And the right extends, not only to the amount of damages, but to several causes of action, distinct debts, distinct acres of land, and distinct pleas... And the right is recognised as existing after error brought, and while the cause is depending in the court above, and the court of error will suspend its judgment to give time for the defendant in error to amend in the court below.
right to remit
An order of remittitur is a judicial determination of recoverable damages; it is not an agreement among the parties involving mutual concessions.