Additur
This article needs additional citations for verification. (March 2021) |
An additur (
U.S. federal courts, as held by Dimick vs. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474 (1935).[1] However, Dimick was decided before Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938), which given the rarity of additur makes it unclear whether federal courts are bound by this rule when applying state law in diversity cases
.
Some American states, on the other hand, allow the practice, including California and New Jersey.[2] It is the opposite of remittitur, which is allowed in federal law. Although this is a rarely used procedure, it is usually granted for punitive damages when it is used in state courts.
References
Look up additur in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
- ^ "Dimick v. Scheidt, 293 U.S. 474 (1935)". FindLaw. Retrieved 2009-03-17.
- ^ Fisch v. Manger, 130 A.2d 815 (N.J. 1957).