Remittitur
A court's order reducing an excessive jury damages award as a condition of denying a new trial.
Remittitur is a post-verdict remedy in which a judge finds that a jury's damages award is excessive, unsupported by the evidence, or shocking to the conscience, and offers the plaintiff a choice: accept a reduced amount set by the court, or go through a new trial limited to damages. It is typically raised in a motion for new trial, with the reduction offered as an alternative to actually retrying the case. The device lets a court correct an outlier award without discarding the jury's liability finding or forcing both sides back through a full trial.
In federal court remittitur is one-directional. The Seventh Amendment's reexamination clause has been read, since Dimick v. Schiedt, to forbid a federal judge from increasing a jury's award (a practice called additur) without the defendant's consent, because that would effectively substitute the judge's own damages finding for the jury's. Many state courts are not bound by the Seventh Amendment in the same way and do permit additur, so the availability of an upward correction depends heavily on whether the case is in federal or state court.
In practice, plaintiffs faced with a remittitur order almost always accept the reduced figure rather than gamble a proven liability verdict on a second damages trial, so remittitur functions as a near-final number once ordered. Defendants can still appeal if they believe even the reduced award remains excessive, and remittitur frequently interacts with constitutional due-process review of punitive damages, since both doctrines police the outer bound of what a verdict can reasonably award.
How it actually shows up
Defense counsel and insurers use the threat and reality of remittitur to model the effective ceiling on a jury verdict, since it trims the most extreme tail outcomes before judgment becomes final. Plaintiffs' counsel weigh a remittitur offer against the cost, delay, and uncertainty of a full retrial on damages alone.
- What does remittitur mean in a lawsuit?
- It is a court order reducing a jury's damages award because the judge finds it excessive or unsupported by the evidence, offered as an alternative to ordering a full new trial on damages. The plaintiff can accept the lower figure or proceed to retry the damages question, which carries its own risk and cost.
- Can a federal judge increase a jury verdict instead of reducing it?
- Generally no. Federal courts treat an upward adjustment, known as additur, as inconsistent with the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial unless the defendant consents to it. Several state courts are not bound by that limitation and do allow additur, so the answer depends on which court's rules apply.
- Why would a plaintiff accept a remittitur instead of appealing?
- Accepting locks in a reduced but certain recovery and a favorable liability finding, while a retrial risks a worse outcome, added delay, and additional litigation cost. Most plaintiffs view the reduced figure as the more reliable path once a judge has already signaled the original award will not stand.
This page is an educational explainer, not legal advice, and creates no attorney–client relationship. Juricratic is a simulation engine: every probability-like figure is a dial you set, not a calibrated prediction. Verify every rule, deadline, and figure against the authorities and orders that govern your matter.
Turn the concept into a modeled matter.
Juricratic makes every one of these ideas a live dial: model your case as a solvable game, then watch the optimal line and the settlement window move as the assumptions do.
Request access →