When an appeal is taken to the appropriate appellate court from the judgment of any court and the appellate court shall be of the opinion that the case should be reversed because the judgment of the lower court is excessive and that there is no other ground of reversal, the appellate court shall notify the appellee of the amount which it deems in excess of the just and proper amount of recovery and require the appellee, within a time to be stated in said notice, to remit such amount upon penalty of a reversal of the case. If the appellee does not, within the time stated in such notice or within such further time as may be granted by the court for good reason file a remittitur of such excessive amount, the appellate court shall reverse and remand the case; but, if the appellee shall file with the court a remittitur of the amount deemed excessive by the court, the appellate court shall reduce the amount of the judgment accordingly and shall affirm the case and enter a judgment for such reduced amount, which judgment so entered shall be and remain the judgment of the lower court and shall date back to the time of the entry or rendition of the judgment in the lower court.
(Acts 1915, No. 542, p. 610; Code 1923, §6150; Code 1940, T. 7, §811.)
Notes of Decisions
Aspinwall v. Gowens, 405 So. 2d 134 (Ala. 1981).
· cites it 3× “Applying this deductible to the pecuniary loss results in a maximum possible judgment of $2,202.”
Henderson by Hartsfield v. Alabama Power, 627 So. 2d 878 (Ala. 1993).
· cites it 2× “See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-22-71. I thought that the review procedures that the legislature adopted were designed to comport with federal and state requirements regarding review of claims of excessiveness.”
Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc. v. Henderson, 371 So. 2d 899 (Ala. 1979).
· cites it 2× “There was no motion for new trial and thus no opportunity for the trial court to rule on the question of excessiveness, and no opportunity for Henderson to agree to a remittitur without the delay and expense of an appeal.”
Life Ins. Co. of Georgia v. Johnson, 725 So. 2d 934 (Ala. 1998).
· cites it 5× “By the operation of § 12-22-71, our judgment entered in Johnson II for the reduced amount "[was] and remain[ed] the judgment of the lower court and .”
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Harris, 630 So. 2d 1018 (Ala. 1994).
· cites it 2× “Subject to important state constitutional constraints, this Court has the authority under § 12-22-71, Ala.Code 1975, to determine the proper amount of recovery and to affirm the judgment, subject to the filing of a remittitur of the amount in excess of the proper amount, when…”
Green Oil Co. v. Hornsby, 539 So. 2d 218 (Ala. 1989).
“59(f), and this Court, pursuant to Code 1975, § 12-22-71, may interfere with it. At what point, however, will a damages award require a finding of a flawed jury verdict? "`First, it may include or exclude a sum which is clearly recoverable or not as a matter of law, or which is…”
Union Mortg. Co., Inc. v. Barlow, 595 So. 2d 1335 (Ala. 1992).
· cites it 2× “In this case there is no need for speculation: the jury, by its first verdict, clearly indicated a finding that American Home and its agents were acting as agents of Union Mortgage. That verdict was consistent with the later verdict for the plaintiffs on the contract count.”
Wilson v. Dukona Corp., N.V., 547 So. 2d 70 (Ala. 1989).
· cites it 2× “59(f), and this Court, pursuant to Code 1975, § 12-22-71, may interfere with it. At what point, however, will a damages award require a finding of a flawed jury verdict? "`"First, it may include or exclude a sum which is clearly recoverable or not as a matter of law, or which is…”
Tanner v. Ebbole, 88 So. 3d 856 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-22-71. 2091121 — AFFIRMED.”
Cent. Alabama Elec. Co-Op. v. Tapley, 546 So. 2d 371 (Ala. 1989).
“STEAGALL, J., concurs. NOTES [1] The Attorney General was notified by this Court that this issue was pending and, after reviewing the briefs of counsel, the Attorney General declined to submit a brief.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.