Howell Heflin said "In the case of Dimick versus Schiedt, a 1935 Supreme Court case, the High Court ruled that the district court lacked the power to deny a plaintiff a new trial, sought on the ground that the jury award of damages was too low, when the trial court judge proposed to increase the damages and the defendant had consented in order to avoid a new trial. The Supreme Court held that the power to increase a damage award, known as an additur, was a violation of the right of trial by jury. According to the Court, the amount of damages must be determined by juries, not judges, in the Federal court, subject to the right of courts to set aside jury awards that are clearly excessive. Some State courts have held that additur violates their State's constitution as well. That is the major point that I want to make on this issue." @ PoliticalQuotes.com

On the recordMay 9, 1995

In the case of Dimick versus Schiedt, a 1935 Supreme Court case, the High Court ruled that the district court lacked the power to deny a plaintiff a new trial, sought on the ground that the jury award of damages was too low, when the trial court judge proposed to increase the damages and the defendant had consented in order to avoid a new trial. The Supreme Court held that the power to increase a damage award, known as an additur, was a violation of the right of trial by jury. According to the Court, the amount of damages must be determined by juries, not judges, in the Federal court, subject to the right of courts to set aside jury awards that are clearly excessive. Some State courts have held that additur violates their State's constitution as well. That is the major point that I want to make on this issue.

Said by

Howell Heflin

Democratic · Alabama

Source

govinfo.gov

Editor's note · Context

Discussing the implications of the Supreme Court ruling on additur in relation to jury awards.

Share on X Share on Facebook Email this quote