Robert J. Seltzner v. Rdk Corp., an Indiana Corp. D/B/A Cortney's Restaurant, 756 F.2d 51 (7th Cir. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Robert J. Seltzner v. Rdk Corp., an Indiana Corp. D/B/A Cortney's Restaurant, 756 F.2d 51 (7th Cir. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“an order for a new trial is not a final order . . . and since the plaintiff in this case refused to accept the remittitur, the order from which he is appealing ... is not appealable.”
10 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Antilles School, Inc. v. Lembach (virginislands, 2016-03-14)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Antilles School, Inc. v. Lembach
virginislands · 2016 · signal: see, e.g. · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
an order for a new trial is not a final order . . . and since the plaintiff in this case refused to accept the remittitur, the order from which he is appealing ... is not appealable.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Seneca Adams v. City of Chicago
7th Cir. · 2015 · confidence medium
Relying on the rule that a plaintiff may not appeal an order granting remittitur and offering a new trial, see Seltzner v. RDK Corp., 756 F.2d 51, 52 (7th Cir.1985); see also Kelly v. Moore, 376 F.3d 481, 483 (5th Cir.2004), the City’s opening gambit is that the appeal should be dismissed for want of appellate jurisdiction.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Treadwell v. Kennedy
C.D. Ill. · 1988 · confidence medium
Corp., 756 F.2d 51, 52 (7th Cir.1985); Juneau Square Corp. v. First Wisconsin Nat’l Bank of Milwaukee, 624 F.2d 798, 806 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1013 , 101 S.Ct. 571 , 66 L.Ed.2d 472 (1980).
discussed Cited "see" Kelly v. Moore
5th Cir. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Seltzner v. KDK Corp., 756 F.2d 51, 51 (7th Cir.1985) ("If the plaintiff isn’t satisfied with the outcome of the new trial he can appeal from the judgment entered at the conclusion of that trial and can seek reinstatement of the original jury award.”). 3 .
discussed Cited "see" Sandra Ortiz-Del Valle v. The National Basketball Association
2d Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Seltzner v. RDK Corp., 756 F.2d 51, 52 (7th Cir.1985) ("[S]ince the plaintiff in this case refused to accept the remittitur, the order from which he is appealing is an order for a new trial, and is not appeal-able."); Herold v. Burlington N., Inc., 761 F.2d 1241 , 1249 (8th Cir.1985) ("An order granting a n~w trial after the refusal to accept a remittitur is an interlocutory order and not ordinarily appealable.") (citations omitted).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Robert J. SELTZNER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RDK CORPORATION, an Indiana Corporation D/B/A Cortney’s Restaurant, Defendant-Appellee
85-1011.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Mar 6, 1985.
756 F.2d 51
1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 29297
Gregory X. Gorman and H. Candace Gor-man, Gorman & Gorman, Chicago, 111., for plaintiff-appellant., Thomas C. Broderick and James R. Quinn, Quinn & Broderick, Chicago, 111., for defendant-appellee.
Cummings, Posner, Flaum.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The jury in this diversity personal-injury case brought in a verdict for the plaintiff of $69,500. On the defendant’s motion the district judge ordered a new trial unless the plaintiff would agree to remit $29,500 of the jury’s award. The plaintiff has appealed from this order, and the defendant has moved to dismiss the appeal.

An order for a new trial is not a final order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291; and since the plaintiff in this case refused to accept the remittitur, the order from which he is appealing is an order for a new trial, and is not appealable. Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980) (per curiam). If the plaintiff isn’t satisfied with the outcome of the new trial he can appeal from the judgment entered at the conclusion of that trial and can seek reinstatement of the original jury award. See id. at 36, 101 S.Ct. at 190. We add for completeness that if the plaintiff had accepted the remittitur, he could not appeal at all. Donovan v. Penn Shipping Co., 429 U.S. 648, 97 S.Ct. 835, 51 L.Ed.2d 112 (1977) (per curiam).

Appeal Dismissed.