CHARLES D. MCDONALD, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,
v.
CHARLES M. BENNETT AND JAMES V. BELVEDERE, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS; CHARLES M. BENNETT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V. CHARLES D. MCDONALD, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
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.
The court granted the plaintiff's petition for rehearing to accept his remittitur and render final judgment, avoiding further proceedings on remand.
Following a prior remand order offering a remittitur of damages, the plaintiff accepted the remittitur and requested the court enter judgment on that …
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Petition For Rehearing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
In McDonald v. Bennett, 674 F. 2d 1080 (5th Cir. 1982), this Court remanded the case with instructions for the district court to offer plaintiff-appellee McDonald, as an alternative to a new trial, a remittitur of $303,900.00 in damages awarded against defendant-appellants Bennett and Belvedere, and of $100,000.00 in damages awarded against Bennett singly. Both sides have submitted petitions for rehearing, reiterating arguments that we already have found to be without merit. We deny these petitions for rehearing except as stated below.
Appellee McDonald’s petition, however, also contains McDonald’s assent to the remittitur, along with his request that we render judgment on this basis and without further proceedings on remand. This court is empowered to enter a remittitur. Our power in this respect is the same as that of a district court. Shingleton v. Armor Velvet Corp., 621 F. 2d 180, 182 (5th Cir. 1980). “[I]f a remand would be mere wasted motion this Court [may] recompute the award.” Id. (quoting Ferrero v. United States, 603 F. 2d 510, 515 (5th Cir. 1979)).
As McDonald has agreed to the remittitur described in our prior opinion, further proceedings on remand would be a waste of time. Accordingly, we grant his petition for rehearing for the sole purpose of accepting his remittitur and rendering judgment in place of remand. Our judgment hereby awards McDonald $98,905.00 in actual damages against Bennett and Belvedere, jointly and severally, an additional $150,000.00 in punitive damages against Bennett, and another $150,000.00 in punitive damages against Belvedere.
JUDGMENT RENDERED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hobson v. Wilson, 737 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1984)
Authorities Cited
- Ferrero v. United States, 603 F.2d 510 (5th Cir. 1979)
- Shingleton v. Armor Velvet Corp., 621 F.2d 180 (5th Cir. 1980)
- McDONALD v. Bennett, 674 F.2d 1080 (5th Cir. 1982)