EDNA ALEXANDER GLEASON, AS NATURAL TUTRIX OF THE MINOR, KEVIN L. GLEASON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
THOMAS L. HALL, DEFENDANT-THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-APPELLEE-CROSS APPELLANT, SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, DEFENDANT-THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE-CROSS APPELLANT, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A plaintiff who accepts a remittitur order, even under protest, may not appeal that order.
Plaintiff accepted a remittitur order 'under protest' and sought to appeal its propriety. Defendants cross-appealed, arguing for a larger remittitur.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM:
In an opinion in this case issued July 11, 1977, 555 F. 2d 514-521, this Court allowed a plaintiff who had accepted “under protest” a remittitur to challenge on appeal the propriety of the remittitur. The defendants cross-appealed on the ground that the district court erred in not requiring a larger remittitur by the plaintiff. We affirmed the district court, relying on the Fifth Circuit rule that:
The standard for review ... is strict; and the trial court will be reversed only if the party opposed to the remittitur shows an abuse of discretion on the part of the judge.
Bonura Sea Land Service, Inc., 5 Cir. 1974, 505 F. 2d 665, 669. We cited also Gorsalitz v. Olin Mathiesen Chemical Corporation, 5 Cir. 1972, 456 F. 2d 180, 181, cert. denied, 407 U.S. 921, 92 S.Ct. 2463, 32 L.Ed.2d 807, reh. denied, 409 U.S. 899, 93 S.Ct. 108, 34 L.Ed.2d 159.
The Supreme Court has now held in Donovan v. Penn Shipping Co., 1977, 429 U.S. 648, 97 S.Ct. 835, 51 L.Ed.2d 112, 114:
In order to clarify whatever uncertainty might exist, we now reaffirm the longstanding rule that a plaintiff in federal court, whether prosecuting a state or federal cause of action, may not appeal from a remittitur order he has accepted [even though the order stated that he accepted “under protest”]. Accordingly, our earlier opinion decided July 11, 1977, is withdrawn. The appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gleason v. Hall, 555 F.2d 514 (5th Cir. 1977)
Authorities Cited
- Donovan v. Penn Shipping Co., Inc., 429 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1977)
- Bonura v. SEA Land Serv., Inc., 505 F.2d 665 (5th Cir. 1974)
- Gorsalitz v. Olin Mathieson Chem. Corp., 456 F.2d 180 (5th Cir. 1972)
- City of Hickory Hills v. Vill. of Bridgeview, 407 U.S. 921 (U.S. 1972)
- Hatton v. Smith, 407 U.S. 921 (U.S. 1972)
- Moore v. United States, 409 U.S. 899 (U.S. 1972)
- Gleason v. Hall, 555 F.2d 514 (5th Cir. 1977)