Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 6-11-23 (2026)
No Presumption of Correctness; Court to Conduct Hearings; Admissible Relevant Evidence; Trial Court to Independently Reassess Award of Punitive Damages.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
(a) No presumption of correctness shall apply as to the amount of punitive damages awarded by the trier of the fact.
(b) In all cases wherein a verdict for punitive damages is awarded, the trial court shall, upon motion of any party, either conduct hearings or receive additional evidence, or both, concerning the amount of punitive damages. Any relevant evidence, including but not limited to the economic impact of the verdict on the defendant or the plaintiff, the amount of compensatory damages awarded, whether or not the defendant has been guilty of the same or similar acts in the past, the nature and the extent of any effort the defendant made to remedy the wrong and the opportunity or lack of opportunity the plaintiff gave the defendant to remedy the wrong complained of shall be admissible; however, such information shall not be subject to discovery, unless otherwise discoverable, until after a verdict for punitive damages has been rendered. After such post verdict hearing the trial court shall independently (without any presumption that the award of punitive damages is correct) reassess the nature, extent, and economic impact of such an award of punitive damages, and reduce or increase the award if appropriate in light of all the evidence.
(Acts 1987, No. 87-185, p. 251, §4.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 55
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1989–2022 · leading case: Armstrong v. Roger's Outdoor Sports.
Armstrong v. Roger's Outdoor Sports (Ala. 1991). “There were only two constitutional challenges to Ala.Code 1975, § 6-11-23, filed by Armstrong in the trial courta challenge under Article I, § 11 (right of trial by jury) and a challenge *428 under § 13 (right through due process to remedy for injury).”
Life Ins. Co. of Georgia v. Johnson (Ala. 1996). “As a former circuit court judge, I believe that submitting facts and information from other cases, perhaps in an attempt by opposing attorneys to establish the amount of punitive damages awarded by other juries in "comparable cases," will be more confusing and time-consuming…”
Johns v. AT Stephens Enter., Inc. (Ala. 2001). “We remand for a hearing on the question of excessiveness of the punitive-damages award, in accordance with Ala.Code 1975, § 6-11-23(b). For a full recitation of the facts and procedural history of this case, see A.”
Life Ins. Co. of Georgia v. Johnson (Ala. 1997). “1989), and § 6-11-23(b), Ala.Code 1975. [1] Following the hearing, the trial judge, pursuant to Ala.”
Wilson v. Gillis Advert. Co. (N.D. Ala. 1993). “This issue, insofar as it implicates state law, and if the state law were controlling, would be simple, because the application of Ala.Code § 6-11-23 (1992) 1 would *580 clearly prevent the jury from considering defendant’s net worth in deciding what, if any, punitive damages to…”
BMW of North Am., Inc. v. Gore (Ala. 1997). “We see the three guideposts as factors to be emphasized in a judicial review of a punitive damages award pursuant to Hammond, Green Oil, and Ala.Code 1975, § 6-11-23(b). In sum, the United States Supreme Court's BMW decision seems to hold that the presumption of validity Alabama…”
Bozeman v. Busby (Ala. 1994). “This appeal challenges the constitutionality of Ala.Code 1975, § 6-11-23, to the extent that it provides for additur in regard to punitive damages awards.”
Kmart Corp. v. Kyles (Ala. 1998). “"In [ BMW ], the Supreme Court addressed the constitutional challenges to punitive damages awards and announced a decision requiring states to judicially review jury verdicts that award punitive damages to determine whether such verdicts violate the tortfeasors' rights under the…”
In Re Jacobs (Tex. App. 2009). “1997) (citing Ala.Code § 6-11-23(b)); Prior v. Brown Transp.”
Henderson by Hartsfield v. Alabama Power (Ala. 1993). “" In Armstrong , the majority of this Court deviated from our judicially prescribed standard of review to strike down portions of Ala.Code 1975, § 6-11-23, proclaiming that Armstrong presented a "unique situation.”
Horton Homes, Inc. v. Brooks (Ala. 2001). “Acts 1987, enacted what became Ala. Code 1975, § 6-11-23(a) ("No presumption of correctness shall apply as to the amount of punitive damages awarded by the trier of the fact.”
Duck Head Apparel Co., Inc. v. Hoots (Ala. 1995). “1989), and the provisions of § 6-11-23(b), CODE OF ALABAMA (1975). "The Alabama Constitution of 1901, Article I, Section 11, provides `[t]hat the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate.”
— Ala. Code § 6-11-23(a) — 10 cases
Armstrong v. Roger's Outdoor Sports (Ala. 1991). “There were only two constitutional challenges to Ala.Code 1975, § 6-11-23, filed by Armstrong in the trial courta challenge under Article I, § 11 (right of trial by jury) and a challenge *428 under § 13 (right through due process to remedy for injury).”
Horton Homes, Inc. v. Brooks (Ala. 2001). “Acts 1987, enacted what became Ala. Code 1975, § 6-11-23(a) ("No presumption of correctness shall apply as to the amount of punitive damages awarded by the trier of the fact.”
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Harris (Ala. 1994).
Moore v. Mobile Infirmary Ass'n (Ala. 1991).
Ala. River Grp., Inc. v. Conecuh Timber, Inc. (Ala. 2017).
— Ala. Code § 6-11-23(b) — 21 cases
Johns v. AT Stephens Enter., Inc. (Ala. 2001). “We remand for a hearing on the question of excessiveness of the punitive-damages award, in accordance with Ala.Code 1975, § 6-11-23(b). For a full recitation of the facts and procedural history of this case, see A.”
Life Ins. Co. of Georgia v. Johnson (Ala. 1996). “As a former circuit court judge, I believe that submitting facts and information from other cases, perhaps in an attempt by opposing attorneys to establish the amount of punitive damages awarded by other juries in "comparable cases," will be more confusing and time-consuming…”
Life Ins. Co. of Georgia v. Johnson (Ala. 1997). “1989), and § 6-11-23(b), Ala.Code 1975. [1] Following the hearing, the trial judge, pursuant to Ala.”
BMW of North Am., Inc. v. Gore (Ala. 1997). “We see the three guideposts as factors to be emphasized in a judicial review of a punitive damages award pursuant to Hammond, Green Oil, and Ala.Code 1975, § 6-11-23(b). In sum, the United States Supreme Court's BMW decision seems to hold that the presumption of validity Alabama…”
Armstrong v. Roger's Outdoor Sports (Ala. 1991). “There were only two constitutional challenges to Ala.Code 1975, § 6-11-23, filed by Armstrong in the trial courta challenge under Article I, § 11 (right of trial by jury) and a challenge *428 under § 13 (right through due process to remedy for injury).”
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.