If any judgment is rendered, by mistake or clerical error, for a larger sum than is due, the party recovering the judgment may have the amount of the judgment decreased by remittitur to the amount which is due, provided reasonable notice has been given to the adverse party or his attorney. The court may thereupon order the record of the judgment to be corrected, and affirm the judgment for the amount to which it has been decreased.
(1949 Rev., S. 7961; P.A. 78-280, S. 104, 127; P.A. 82-160, S. 113.)
History: P.A. 78-280 rephrased section and deleted reference to remittance of excess sum rendered in judgment by mistake or clerical error “at the same or any subsequent term or session of the court in which it was rendered”, reflecting fact that court now sits continuously; P.A. 82-160 rephrased the section.
Otherwise before statute. 4 C. 311. Applies where judgment exceeds damages claimed. 75 C. 255; Id., 263; 82 C. 619. Court may order; 69 C. 652; 71 C. 23; 78 C. 296; 81 C. 101; so Supreme Court may direct new trial unless part of damages remitted; 83 C. 278; 85 C. 24; Id., 611; 86 C. 319; 87 C. 686; so trial court may direct verdict to be set aside on same condition; 82 C. 171; and when court takes that course, party cannot take advantage of it after appeal. 89 C. 712. Where damages assessed as of wrong date, Supreme Court remanded case, with directions to set verdict aside unless remittitur filed. 93 C. 123. Court may in its discretion either order excessive verdict set aside unless remittitur filed or set it aside unconditionally. 126 C. 571. Action of trial court in ordering remittiturs will not be reversed unless the broad legal discretion vested in the trial court was abused. 147 C. 719. An obviously erroneous judgment can be corrected to conform to the finding of the trial court. 148 C. 504. Excessive judgment must be assigned as error on appeal. 154 C. 179. Cited. 230 C. 795.
Cited. 26 CA 231; 32 CA 617; judgment reversed, see 230 C. 795.
When court will set aside a verdict as excessive. 21 CS 233.
Notes of Decisions
Bennett v. Auto. Ins., 646 A.2d 806 (Conn. 1994).
· cites it 7× “” General Statutes § 52-228 provides: “If any judgment is rendered, by mistake or clerical error, for a larger sum than is due, the party recovering the judgment may have the amount of the judgment decreased by remittitur to the amount which is due, provided reasonable notice…”
Munn v. Hotchkiss Sch., 165 A.3d 1167 (Conn. 2017).
· cites it 2× “During that period, our cases generally recognized that (1) the trial court has "broad legal discretion" to grant or deny a motion for remittitur, (2) such discretion, however, is not unfettered, (3) appellate tribunals review a trial court's ruling on a motion for remittitur…”
Flater v. Grace, 969 A.2d 157 (Conn. 2009).
· cites it 4× “The defendant declined to pursue any of the remedies available to him to aid him in correcting the mistake in the damages calculation, including filing a motion for remittitur pursuant to General Statutes § 52-228 10 or filing a motion to open the judgment within the appeals…”
Fritz v. Madow, 426 A.2d 268 (Conn. 1979).
· cites it 4× “2d 680 (1973); see also General Statutes § 52-228. It is a well-established rule of law that a plaintiff is entitled to full satisfaction for his damages and no more.”
Goral v. Kenney, 600 A.2d 1031 (Conn. App. Ct. 1991).
· cites it 4× “We draw a distinction in our review of the separate motion for remittitur and our treatment of the motion to set aside the verdict because General Statutes § 52-228, which provides for remittitur, does not explicitly refer to any time limitation for the filing of such a motion.”
Bennett v. Auto. Ins., 630 A.2d 149 (Conn. App. Ct. 1993).
· cites it 4× “On May 28, 1992, pursuant to Practice Book §§ 325 2 *619 and 326 3 and General Statutes § 52-228, 4 the defendant filed motions to open the judgment and for remittitur.”
Salaman v. City of Waterbury, 717 A.2d 161 (Conn. 1998).
· cites it 2× “After the verdict was returned, the city filed its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the ground that there was no evidence supporting liability to a licensee, and the motion was granted on that ground. At that time, NOW and Trotman filed a motion for remittitur,…”
Cohen v. Yale-New Haven Hosp., 800 A.2d 499 (Conn. 2002).
· cites it 2× “In the present case, pursuant to the defendant’s motion for remittitur, the trial court determined that the jury’s award of $1,400,000 for damage to the plaintiffs sciatic nerve was excessive. Accordingly, the trial court ordered the plaintiff either to remit $1,025,000 or…”
Solari v. Seperak, 224 A.2d 529 (Conn. 1966).
· cites it 2× “Practice Book § 259; General Statutes § 52-228; Kirkbride v. Bartz, 82 Conn.”
Adams v. Wright, 403 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1981).
“, remittitur); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-228 (1981) (Rules of Civ.”
Dimmock v. Allstate Ins., 853 A.2d 543 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 4× “On January 10, 2003, the defendant filed a motion to open the judgment and for remittitur pursuant to Practice Book §§ 17-4 3 and 17-3, 4 and General Statutes §§ 52-228 5 and 38a-336 (b).”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-228(b) — 1 case
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.