In a federal civil jury case, the appellate court ordinarily reviews a trial judge's reduction of an excessive verdict for abuse of discretion. The answer changes if state appellate rules govern or the reduction involves the constitutional limit on punitive damages, which receives de novo review. A remittitur is a judge-ordered choice between accepting a reduced damages award and facing a new trial. Identifying the court system and the judge's stated reason for reducing the verdict is therefore essential.
Table of Contents
- What does abuse-of-discretion review mean?
- What happens in a federal diversity case?
- Why might a state appeal use a different test?
- When does de novo review apply?
- What should the verdict winner check?
What does abuse-of-discretion review mean?
Abuse-of-discretion review gives the trial judge substantial authority over the decision. The appellate court examines whether the judge permissibly exercised that authority rather than deciding the proper damages amount from scratch. The trial judge has primary responsibility because that judge heard the testimony and observed the evidence in the courtroom. Appellate judges generally work from the written record.
The U.S. Supreme Court applied this approach to federal appellate review in Gasperini v. Center for Humanities. This standard applies to a federal trial judge's grant or denial of remittitur. It does not make the ruling immune from reversal, but it limits the appellate court's role.
What happens in a federal diversity case?
A diversity case can involve state damages law even though the lawsuit proceeds in federal court. In that setting, the federal district judge applies the governing state-law test for deciding whether the award is excessive. The federal court of appeals nevertheless reviews the district judge's application of that test for abuse of discretion.
This distinction separates the substantive damages rule from the appellate standard of review. For example, the district judge might use a state test to evaluate the award. On appeal, the question is whether the federal judge abused the discretion used in applying that test—not whether the appellate judges would have selected the same amount themselves.
Why might a state appeal use a different test?
State appellate standards depend on the jurisdiction. new York illustrates why a reader should not assume that the federal abuse-of-discretion rule applies everywhere. New York's CPLR 5501(c) directs the Appellate Division to determine whether an itemized damages award "deviates materially" from reasonable compensation, according to the New York State Senate's published statute.
New York appellate courts can apply that test by comparing the plaintiff's injuries with awards in relevant cases. That approach differs from federal appellate review of a trial judge's discretionary remittitur decision. The caption, court name, and governing procedural law help reveal which standard controls.
When does de novo review apply?
A federal appellate court uses de novo review when the issue is whether punitive damages are constitutionally excessive. De novo means the appellate court decides the constitutional question independently, without deferring to the trial judge's conclusion. The U.S. Supreme Court established that standard in Cooper Industries v.
Leatherman Tool Group. This exception concerns constitutional review of punitive damages, not every dispute over a large verdict. The wording of the trial court's order matters. A reduction based on ordinary damages excessiveness generally points toward abuse-of-discretion review in federal court; a constitutional punitive-damages ruling points toward de novo review.
What should the verdict winner check?
Start with the reduction order rather than the reduced dollar figure. Look for: That final choice is important.
Under the Supreme Court's decision in Hetzel v. Prince William County, a federal court cannot simply impose a lower jury award through remittitur; it must preserve the verdict winner's option to accept the reduced amount or obtain a new trial.
- Whether the case is in federal or state court.
- Whether the judge described the remedy as remittitur.
- Which state-law damages test, if any, the judge applied.
- Whether the ruling addressed ordinary excessiveness or a constitutional punitive-damages limit.
- Whether the verdict winner may accept the reduction or choose a new trial.