Wiggs v. Courshon

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1973 · Torts

TortsAppealabilityNew TrialRemittiturfinal judgmentinterlocutory ordernew trialremittitur

Facts

The plaintiffs obtained jury verdicts totaling $25,000, consisting in part of compensatory damages and in part of punitive damages, in a tort action for insult against the defendant. The district court concluded the verdicts were too large and ordered that the defendant's motion for a new trial would be granted unless the plaintiffs agreed within ten days to reduce each verdict proportionately so that the total became $2,500. The plaintiffs did not accept the remittitur and filed a notice of appeal. They argued the order fit a jurisdictional exception because the court allegedly acted too late and on a ground not stated in the motion.

Issue

Is a district court order granting a new trial unless the plaintiffs accept a remittitur immediately appealable when the plaintiffs refuse the remittitur and appeal? Does the jurisdictional exception apply because the new-trial order allegedly rested on a ground outside the defendant's motion or was entered after the permissible period?

Rule

An order granting a new trial is ordinarily not appealable because it is interlocutory and not a final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. In the remittitur context, appellate review is available either after a final judgment following the second trial or from the final judgment entered when the plaintiff accepts the remittitur under protest. A narrow exception exists where the trial court lacks jurisdiction, such as when a Rule 59 motion is untimely or the court acts outside the permissible basis for granting relief.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a diversity defamation action in federal court in Atlanta, a jury awarded Nadia Brooks $420,000 against Rowan Pike. The district judge ruled that the award was excessive and ordered a new trial unless Nadia accepted a reduction to $150,000 within 14 days; Nadia refused and immediately filed a notice of appeal.

Should the court of appeals hear Nadia's appeal immediately?

Explanation. The majority rule is that an order granting a new trial is interlocutory, not final under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. When the plaintiff refuses the remittitur, there is no appealable final judgment; review must await a later final judgment unless the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant the new trial. The order is therefore not immediately appealable merely because it rejected the jury's award. (Derived from Wiggs v. Courshon (n.d.).)