Cases from cite.case.law:

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. SCHLEIDER,, 273 So. 3d 63 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . On the other hand, section 768.74, Florida Statutes (2014), requires a completely different analysis. . . . Section 768.74 sets forth a list of factors a trial court is required to consider when determining whether . . . The majority has provided the factors listed in section 768.74, so they will not be repeated here. . . . . § 768.74, Fla. Stat. (2014) (emphasis added). . . .

RODRIGUEZ, v. MIAMI- DADE COUNTY,, 339 F. Supp. 3d 1279 (M.D. Fla. 2018)

. . . Rodriguez also argues an additur is appropriate under Section 768.74, Florida Statutes, which permits . . . Rodriguez cited no authority to support her argument that Section 768.74 applies in employment actions . . . Inv. , 592 F.3d 1201, 1212 (11th Cir. 2010) (applying Section 768.74 to compensatory awards on state . . .

E. ODOM, v. R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY,, 254 So. 3d 268 (Fla. 2018)

. . . . § 768.74(1). . . . Id. § 768.74(6). . . . Id. § 768.74(2). . . . Id. § 768.74(5). . . . See § 768.74(5)(a)-(e), Fla. Stat. (2014). . . .

WAL- MART STORES, INC. a v. THORNTON,, 241 So. 3d 867 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . court's judgment and remand for reconsideration of the motion for remittitur in accordance with section 768.74 . . .

SANCHEZ LLC, a v. CINQUE, 238 So. 3d 817 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . . § 768.74(5), Fla. Stat. . . .

SCHOEFF, v. R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY,, 232 So. 3d 294 (Fla. 2017)

. . . Id. at 491-92 (quoting •§ 768.74(5)(e)). . . . See § 768.74(5)(a), Fla. Stat. . . . See § 768.74(5)(b), Fla. Stat. . . . See .§. 768.74(5)(c), Fla. Stat. . . . See § 768.74(5)(d), Fla.- Stat. . . .

PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. R. J. v. LEDOUX,, 230 So. 3d 530 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . principle of deference to the trial court’s review of a jury’s damages award is reinforced by section 768.74 . . .

FLNC, INC. d b a v. RAMOS,, 220 So. 3d 1220 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . a new trial solely on the issue of damages based on the Legislature’s express directive in section 768.74 . . . The Estate’s motion for additur-or new trial was based upon section 768.74, Florida Statutes (201-5), . . . additur does not agree, the court shall order a new trial in the cause on the issue of damages only. § 768.74 . . . The Estate argues that because the jury found liability, this case fits squarely within section 768.74 . . . 1991), the injured plaintiff raised the same argument that the Estate offers here, namely that section 768.74 . . . In doing so, we recognized that section 768.74 permits the party to choose between “the amount of additur . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. GROSSMAN,, 211 So. 3d 221 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . Pursuant to Florida’s remittitur and ad-ditur statute, section 768.74 of the Florida Statutes, the trial . . . or inadequate “in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact.” § 768.74 . . . awarded is excessive or inadequate, it shall order a remittitur or additur, as the case may be.” § 768.74 . . . supported by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons. § 768.74 . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. E. ODOM,, 210 So. 3d 696 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Pursuant to Florida’s remittitur and ad-ditur statute, section 768.74 of the Florida Statutes, the trial . . . or inadequate “in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact.” § 768.74 . . . awarded is excessive or inadequate, it shall order a remittitur or additur, as the case may be.” § 768.74 . . . supported by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons. § 768.74 . . .

CRANE CO. R. J. Co. Co. v. DeLISLE, 206 So.3d 94 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Section 768.74(3), Florida Statutes (2016), requires the court to subject a damage award to “close scrutiny . . . elements of damages into account or arrived at the amount of damages by speculation and conjecture[.]” § 768.74 . . .

SECURE SOLUTIONS USA, INC. v. GOLZAR,, 208 So. 3d 204 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . include a request to the trial court to consider ordering a remittitur or a new trial under section 768.74 . . . See § 768.74(1)-(5). . . . add a request for remittitur” to its presently pending motion, citing for the first time to section 768.74 . . . beyond the two specific “errors” originally asserted by invoking the remaining subsections of section 768.74 . . . A motion for remittitur under section 768.74 is “ ‘essentially a conditional motion for a new trial.’ . . . Owens would reach the age of sixty-five. .Wackenhut also made a post-trial motion pursuant to section 768.74 . . .

FAITH FREIGHT FORWARDING CORPORATION, v. ANIAS,, 206 So.3d 753 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . See § 768.74(4), Fla. Stat. (2014). . . .

SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, v. FRIDMAN,, 196 So. 3d 1284 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Section 768.74(1), Florida Statutes (2011), provides that in any action for damages, whether in tort . . . Where the amount awarded is excessive, a trial court is required to order a remittitur. § 768.74(2), . . . affected by the remittitur does not agree, a new trial shall be ordered on the issue of damages only. § 768.74 . . . Fridman, 117 So.3d 16 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). , Section 768.74(5), Florida Statutes (2011), provides: (5 . . .

EMMONS, v. AKERS, II, 187 So. 3d 900 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . “Section 768.74 did not alter the ‘longstanding principles’ governing a trial court’s deference to a . . . While recognizing that “the standard of review for an additur or remittitur based on section [768.74] . . . 768.043 relates only to actions ' for damages arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle, section 768.74 . . . Case law construing section 768.74 applies equally to cases involving section 768.043. . . .

FLYING FISH BIKES, INC. v. GIANT BICYCLE, INC., 181 F. Supp. 3d 957 (M.D. Fla. 2016)

. . . Section 768.74, - Florida Statutes, lists considerations “[i]n determining whether an award is excessive . . . ‘supported by the evidence” (Section 768.74(e)), Giant repeats arguments rejected in resolving Giant’ . . . Arguing that the jury “either ignored or misperceived the largely uncontroverted evidence” (Section 768.74 . . . (a)) and speculation (Section 768.74(c)). . . . The five considerations in Section 768.74 certify that the amount of punitive damages is neither excessive . . .

ORANGE COUNTY, v. S. BUCHMAN W., 183 So. 3d 457 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . As Appellees argue, Bennett was decided prior to the enactment of section 768.74(1), Florida Statutes . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. SCHOEFF,, 178 So. 3d 487 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . .” § 768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2012). . . . .” § 768.74(2), Fla. Stat. . . . the evidence and is such . . that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons., § 768.74 . . . See § 768.74(5)(e), Fla. Stat. . . .

OLEN PROPERTIES CORP. v. CANCEL,, 178 So. 3d 437 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . Hogan, 986 So.2d 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); see also § 768.74(5), Fla. Stat. (2013). . . . See § 768.74(4), Fla. Stat. (2013). We affirm on all other issues raised in this appeal. . . .

P. ARNOLD v. SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,, 174 So. 3d 1082 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . logical manner by reasonable persons and after carefully considering the criteria set forth in Section 768.74 . . . Section 768.74, Florida Statutes (2013), sets forth the factors for a court to consider when determining . . . Section 768.74(5) states: (5) In determining whether an award is excessive or inadequate in light of . . . supported by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons. § 768.74 . . . which “contains an incantation of conclusory statements,” and merely tracks the language of section 768.74 . . .

BROWN v. R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., 113 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (M.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . Therefore, we proceed to analyze the reasonableness of the award under § 768.74(5). . . . Section 768.74(5) sets out criteria to assess the reasonableness of a punitive damages award. . . . set out in § 768.74(5) when assessing the excessiveness of a punitive award). . . . The § 768.74(5) inquiry must be conducted to ensure that “the manifest weight of the evidence does not . . . Section 768.74 did not displace Florida’s longstanding deference to a jury’s damages assessment. . . .

REWJB DAIRY PLANT ASSOCIATES, v. BOMBARDIER CAPITAL, INC., 152 So. 3d 21 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Post-Trial Motions Pursuant to section 768.74, Florida Statutes (2012), Bombardier filed post-trial motions . . . Pursuant to section 768.74(4), Florida Statutes (2012), the trial court allowed Farm Stores seven days . . . New Trial on Liability and Damages Pursuant to section 768.74(4), Florida Statutes (2012), if the party . . . Jackson, 712 So.2d 800, 803 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (recognizing that section 768.74 “instructs that the . . . Section 768.74, Florida Statutes (2012), provides, in pertinent part: (1) In any action to which this . . .

SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, a v. PIERCE GOODWIN ALEXANDER LINVILLE, a, 137 So. 3d 1059 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . .” § 768.74(5), Fla. Stat. (2013). . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. WEBB,, 130 So. 3d 262 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Section 768.74, Florida Statutes, permits the trial court, upon a proper motion, to review damages awards . . . or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact.” § 768.74 . . . ad-ditur does not agree, the court shall order a new trial in the cause on the issue of damages only.” § 768.74 . . . Relying on Mora, we conclude RJR was the “party adversely affected” under section 768.74(4) because it . . . additur does not agree, the court shall order a new trial in the cause on the issue of damages."), and § 768.74 . . .

BLUTH, v. K. BLAKE, Jr. a F. a, 128 So. 3d 242 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . and, therefore, they were entitled to a new trial on damages against the attorney pursuant to section 768.74 . . . Section 768.74(4) states: If the party adversely affected by such remittitur or additur does not agree . . . , the court shall order a new trial in the cause on the issue of damages only. § 768.74(4), Fla. . . . granting the additur, nor the record, indicates the existence of any of the criteria set forth in section 768.74 . . . Section 768.74(5) states: In determining whether an award is excessive or inadequate in light of the . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. SMITH,, 131 So. 3d 18 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . award for non-economic damages under the statutorily-required “close scrutiny” spelled out in section 768.74 . . . prejudice, passion, or corruption’ on the part of the jury.” 90 So.3d at 311 (quoting portions of section 768.74 . . . See § 768.74(3) and (6), Fla. Stat. . . .

LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY, v. ALEXANDER,, 123 So. 3d 67 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Pursuant to Florida’s remittitur and ad-ditur statute, section 768.74 of the Florida Statutes, (2012) . . . Alexander and review all the evidence presented by both parties, applied the mandates of section 768.74 . . . See § 768.74(6) (underscoring the trial court’s discretionary authority to review the damage amounts . . . Townsend, 90 So.3d at 311 (quoting § 768.74(5)); Cohen, 102 So.3d at 18 (“[A jury] verdict should not . . . Peterson, 969 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), Lorillard alleges that section 768.74 does not require . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. TOWNSEND,, 118 So. 3d 844 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Appellant contends it was entitled to object to the proposed remitted judgment, as provided by section 768.74 . . . absent an agreement, submit the matter to a jury for a new trial on damages, as required by both section 768.74 . . .

CHASKES, D. O. ARNP P. A. v. GUTIERREZ,, 116 So. 3d 479 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . .”); see also § 768.74, Fla. Stat. (2012). . . .

PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. v. NAUGLE,, 103 So. 3d 944 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . The trial court found that the non-economic and punitive damages were excessive pursuant to section 768.74 . . . is granted, the party seeking the remittitur may still be “a party adversely affected” under section 768.74 . . .

PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. R. J. v. COHEN,, 102 So. 3d 11 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . .” § 768.74(3), Fla. Stat. (2010). . . .

AZOULAY, v. CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION OF LA MER ESTATES, INC., 94 So. 3d 686 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Section 768.74, Florida Statutes, provides the criteria for determining exces-siveness or inadequacy . . . See § 768.74(6), Fla. Stat. The trial court exercised its authority in this case. . . .

PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. v. NAUGLE,, 126 So. 3d 1155 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Based on the criteria set forth in section 768.74(5), “[i]f the court finds that the amount awarded is . . . excessive or inadequate, it shall order a remittitur or additur, as the case may be.” § 768.74(2), Fla . . . However, PM USA never argued in its initial brief that a new trial was required under section 768.74 . . . The argument based on section 768.74 is clearly a separate and distinct argument from the. one raised . . . Rather, the substance of the argument—that it was entitled to a new trial under section 768.74 as the . . .

N. YOUNG, v. BECKER POLIAKOFF, P. A., 88 So. 3d 1002 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Section 768.74, Florida Statutes, provides criteria for evaluating awards of damages and mandates that . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. WEBB,, 93 So. 3d 331 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . .” § 768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2010). . . . . § 768.74(5), Fla. Stat. (2010). . . . soundness and logic to our judicial system and is in the best interests of the citizens of this state.” § 768.74 . . . amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered.’ § 768.74 . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. ALEXANDER, 90 So. 3d 307 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . These general principles are consistent with the legislative policy expressed in section 768.74, Florida . . . jurisprudence and that such actions should be disturbed or modified with caution and discretion.” § 768.74 . . . But the statute also requires courts to give “close scrutiny” to damage awards, section 768.74(3), Florida . . . for the court to consider in determining whether an award “exceeds a reasonable range of damages.” § 768.74 . . . Judged by the factors set forth in section 768.74(5), Florida Statutes (2009), the amount of compensatory . . . See generally § 768.74, Fla. . . . (emphasis in original and footnote omitted); § 768.74(2), (4), Fla. . . .

ADAMS, v. SAAVEDRA,, 65 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Section 768.74, Florida Statutes (2010), governs remittiturs and additurs. (1) In any action ... it shall . . . supported by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons. § 768.74 . . .

PARRISH, v. CITY OF ORLANDO,, 53 So. 3d 1199 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . A trial court’s consideration of a motion for additur is governed by section 768.74, Florida Statutes . . . or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact.” § 768.74 . . . amount awarded is excessive or inadequate, it [is required to] order a remittitur or [an] additur....” § 768.74 . . . or additur does not agree, the court [must] order a new trial ... on the issue of damages only.” § 768.74 . . .

AILLS, v. BOEMI, M. D. M. D. P. A., 41 So. 3d 1022 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . See § 768.74(4), Fla. . . . .” § 768.74(1). . . . .” § 768.74(2). . . . .” § 768.74(4). . . . . § 768.74(5). . . .

PARHAM, L. v. FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, INC. d b a, 35 So. 3d 920 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Second, it filed a motion for remittitur under section 768.74, Florida Statutes (2003). . . . trial court should now be given renewed discretion to award an amount less than $350,000 under section 768.74 . . . element to measure, and it is a difficult element to reassess under the guidelines established in section 768.74 . . . $4,000,000 award to an amount below $350,000 would fulfill the Legislature’s express recognition in section 768.74 . . .

MYERS, v. CENTRAL FLORIDA INVESTMENTS, INC., 592 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2010)

. . . . § 768.74(5). . . . Stat. § 768.74(6) (“The Legislature recognizes that the reasonable actions of a jury are a fundamental . . . See id. § 768.74(5). . . . This punitive award of $500,000 does not offend Florida Statute § 768.74(5). . . .

WESTMINSTER COMMUNITY CARE SERVICES, INC. ETC. v. MIKESELL,, 12 So. 3d 838 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . We are here concerned with the provision of section 768.74(4), Florida Statutes (2005), which provides . . . Section 768.74 authorizes the trial court to grant an additur where the court determines that the award . . . is “inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact.” § 768.74 . . . Jackson, 712 So.2d 800, 803 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (noting the provision in section 768.74(2) that instructs . . . did not properly preserve her right to seek a new trial; and 3) under the plain language of section 768.74 . . .

CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, v. X. HOGAN, 986 So. 2d 634 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . In section 768.74, Florida Statutes, the legislature made its intent specific that “awards of damages . . . subject to close scrutiny by the courts and that all such awards be adequate and not excessive.” § 768.74 . . .

CURRENT BUILDERS OF FLORIDA, INC. v. FIRST SEALORD SURETY, INC., 984 So. 2d 526 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . Section 768.74, Florida Statutes, governs additur and applies “to any action for damages, whether in . . . Section 768.74(1) provides that in an action resulting in a verdict for money damages to the plaintiff . . . Section 768.74(5) directs courts to consider various factors including: (a) Whether the amount awarded . . . The court concluded that an additur should have been granted, pursuant to section 768.74. . . . See § 768.74(4), Fla. Stat. . . .

GARRETT, v. MIAMI TRANSFER COMPANY, INC. a a, 964 So. 2d 286 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . .” § 768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . Section 768.74(5) sets forth the criteria that a court “shall consider” in “determining whether an award . . . did not “bear[ ] a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered.” § 768.74 . . .

P. JOHNSON, v. CLARK,, 484 F. Supp. 2d 1242 (M.D. Fla. 2007)

. . . . § 768.74(5) (2006); see also Spencer v. BR Contracting, Inc., 935 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). . . .

GLABMAN, M. D. M. D. P. A. v. DE LA CRUZ De La De La, 954 So. 2d 60 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . On remand, the trial court must follow the appropriate statutory procedures, set forth in section 768.74 . . . See § 768.74, Fla. Stat. (2006); Waste Mgmt., Inc. v. Mora, 940 So.2d 1105 (Fla.2006); Moreno v. . . .

STREET, v. H. R. MORTGAGE REALTY CO. III, II,, 949 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Florida Statutes section 768.74(1) authorizes trial courts to review the amount of awarded damages “to . . . Section 768.74(4) further requires that “[i]f the party adversely affected by such remit-titur or additur . . .

MORENO v. DIAZ, 943 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . In conjunction with the well-established Florida law on remittitur, section 768.74, Florida Statutes . . . Section 768.74(5) states, in relevant part, as follows: (5) In determining whether an award is excessive . . . See § 768.74(5)(e), Fla. Stat. (2001). . . . See § 768.74(4), Fla. (2001)(“If the party adversely affected by such remittitur ... does not agree, . . .

A. MOORE, v. M. PERRY,, 944 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . The more recent statute, section 768.74, Florida Statutes (2005), was adopted in 1986, and extended the . . .

WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. v. MORA,, 940 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 2006)

. . . Prior to the Legislature’s adoption of sections 768.043 and 768.74, we had not recognized a trial court . . .

SPENCER, v. BR CONTRACTING, INC., 935 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . Motions for additur and remittitur are governed by section 768.74, Florida Statutes. . . . and remittitur, and requesting a new trial on damages “as statutorily mandated by and pursuant to § 768.74 . . . Section 768.74(4), Florida Statutes, does not provide a timeline for filing an objection to an order . . .

ROCHELLE, E. Jr. v. STATE DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,, 927 So. 2d 997 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . . § 768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2001). . . . . § 768.74(2), Fla. Stat. (2001). . . . .” § 768.74(4), Fla. Stat. (2001) (emphasis added); see also Rowlands v. Signal Constr. . . . While recognizing that section 768.74(4) prescribes that a trial court order a new trial on damages only . . .

JOHNSON, v. BARNES NOBLE BOOKSELLERS, INC., 437 F.3d 1112 (11th Cir. 2006)

. . . . § 768.74(5). . . .

WAL- MART STORES, INC. v. BUFALO,, 909 So. 2d 464 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . Truman, 792 So.2d 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); § 768.74, Fla. Stat. (2004). . . . Before a new trial on damages can be awarded, section 768.74, Florida Statutes, requires the trial court . . . excessive or inadequate” and if so, the court “shall order a remittitur or additur, as the case may be.” § 768.74 . . .

J. GALAMAGA, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 892 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . He then alternatively moved for an additur or new trial pursuant to sections 768.043(1) and 768.74, Florida . . .

TERRY PLUMBING HOME SERVICES, INC. v. L. BERRY,, 900 So. 2d 581 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . . § 768.74(6), Fla. Stat. (2003). . . . Section 768.74(1), Florida Statutes, authorizes trial courts to review damages awarded under a verdict . . . or inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact.” § 768.74 . . . Section 768.74(5), Florida Statutes, requires the comet to consider the following criteria: (a)Whether . . . supported by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons. § 768.74 . . .

COLLINS, v. DOUGLASS,, 874 So. 2d 629 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Section 768.74, Florida Statutes (2003), vests the trial judge with “discretionary authority” to review . . .

DEKLYEN, v. TRUCKERS WORLD, INC., 867 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . By enacting section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1986), the Legislature shed further light on the factors . . . Section 768.74(5) provides: In determining whether an award is excessive or inadequate in light of the . . .

MORTON ROOFING, INC. A. v. D. PRATHER B., 864 So. 2d 64 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . She further points out that under section 768.74(6), Florida Statutes, the legislature has vested in . . .

REPUBLIC SERVICES OF FLORIDA, L. P. f k a v. POUCHER,, 851 So. 2d 866 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Section 768.74(1), Florida Statutes (1999), states: (1) In any action to which this part applies wherein . . . “Section 768.74 did not alter the ‘longstanding principles’ governing a trial court’s deference to a . . .

PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC. v. G. YOUNG, 848 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . .” § 768.74(3), Fla. Stat. (2001). . . . Section 768.74(5), Florida Statutes (2001) sets out five criteria to be applied by the court in determining . . .

LIGGETT GROUP INCORPORATED USA, R. J. v. A. ENGLE, M. D., 853 So. 2d 434 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . See § 768.74(5)(d), Fla. Stat. (1997); Bankers Multiple Line Ins. Co. v. . . .

HENDRY, v. ZELAYA,, 841 So. 2d 572 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . . § 768.74(1)(2002). . . . Section 768.74(4) provides that, “[i]f the party adversely affected by such remittitur or additur does . . . , 749 So.2d 490, 498 (Fla.1999), the Florida Supreme Court stated that the “procedure under section 768.74 . . .

McCARTHY BROTHERS COMPANY, v. TILBURY CONSTRUCTION, INC., 849 So. 2d 7 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . See § 768.74(6), Fla. Stat. (2001); see also Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. . . . Ruane, 525 So.2d 500 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). .See § 768.74(1), Fla. . . . . § 768.74(4), Fla. Stat. (2001); see also Gould v. . . .

ITT HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHEAST, v. OWENS A., 816 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2002)

. . . Section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1993), provides that the trial judge shall grant a remittitur or additur . . . The procedure under section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1997), for remittitur and additur apply only upon . . . while a party need not file a motion for new trial in seeking a remittitur or additur under section 768.74 . . . Edell, 760 So.2d 262, 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (Farmer, J., concurring) (citing section 768.74(4) and . . . We find no authority for the dissenting view here, which would interpret section 768.74(4) to require . . . 2000), sets out important precedent: Plaintiffs motion for an additur was made pursuant to section 768.74 . . . It was only in 1986 with the creation of section 768.74 that the legislature gave judges a general power . . .

STANBERRY, Jr. v. ESCAMBIA COUNTY, a, 813 So. 2d 278 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . remittitur without providing the plaintiff the opportunity for a new trial, in violation of section 768.74 . . .

BASEL Co- v. McFARLAND SONS, INC. a, 815 So. 2d 687 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . Section 768.74, Florida Statutes governs additur and authorizes trial courts to review the amount of . . . are “inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact.” § 768.74 . . . denying ad-ditur, the trial court stated that it considered the statutory guidelines found in section 768.74 . . .

NORMIUS, v. ECKERD CORPORATION,, 813 So. 2d 985 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . Section 768.74(1), Florida Statutes (1993), states that upon proper motion a court has the responsibility . . . Section 768.74(2), Florida Statutes (1993), provides that if a court finds the amount awarded is excessive . . . remittitur or ad-ditur does not agree, the court shall order a new trial on the issue of damages only. § 768.74 . . . supported by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons. § 768.74 . . . See § 768.74(4). . . .

ST. JOHN, v. COISMAN,, 799 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Section 768.74 is another potentially applicable statute. . . . In any event, the trial court’s consideration of section 768.74 does mandate further consideration of . . . the punitive damage award based on federal constitutional criteria, because the criteria in section 768.74 . . . The statutory criteria of section 768.74 are: (a) whether the amount awarded is indicative of prejudice . . . ’s determination under this section is abuse of discretion, or under the statute, close scrutiny. § 768.74 . . . excessiveness relating to capped punitive damage awards are dealt with pursuant to the provisions of section 768.74 . . . Stat. (1993) (now found in section 768.73(l)(d), Florida Statutes (1999); providing that section 768.74 . . .

POPULAR BANK OF FLORIDA, v. R. C. ASESORES FINANCIEROS, C. A., 797 So. 2d 614 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . which sought a $48,697 remittitur of the jury’s award of special transaction fees pursuant to section 768.74 . . .

ARENA PARKING, INC. v. LON WORTH CROW INSURANCE AGENCY,, 802 So. 2d 344 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Pursuant to section 768.74(4), Florida Statutes (1999), “[i]f the party adversely affected by such remittitur . . .

WAXMAN, v. TRUMAN,, 792 So. 2d 657 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Sections 768.043(1) and 768.74(2), Florida Statutes (1991), regarding additur and remittitur, provide . . . that a trial court must order an additur or remittitur prior to ordering a new trial. §§ 768.043(1), 768.74 . . .

ALAQUA LAKES REALTY, INC. v. E. BURCH,, 790 So. 2d 604 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . trial court entered an order granting an additur or in the alternative a new trial, pursuant to section 768.74 . . . Section 768.74 provides factors to be taken into consideration in deciding whether to order an additur . . . Finally, Alaqua Lakes argues that the court failed to address the factors enumerated in subsection 768.74 . . . Section 768.74 provides in part: (1) In any action to which this part applies wherein the trier of fact . . . court shall order a new trial in the cause on the issue of damages only, (emphasis supplied) Section 768.74 . . .

CABRERA, v. FIFE,, 789 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . See § 768.74(5)(d), Fla. Stat. (2000). . . .

J. DAVIS R. v. CATERPILLAR, INC. a Co. a, 787 So. 2d 894 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Section 768.74(1), Florida Statutes (1997), authorizes additurs in those cases where the trial court . . . Section 768.74 did not alter the longstanding principles governing a trial court’s deference to a jury . . . Section 768.74 provides in pertinent part: (5) In determining whether an award is excessive or inadequate . . .

ARENA PARKING, INC. v. LON WORTH CROW INSURANCE AGENCY,, 768 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . In section 768.74(1), Florida Statutes (1997), the legislature authorizes trial courts to review the . . . Section 768.74(5) provides further guidance. . . . (5)(b), and whether it “arrived at the amount of damages by speculation and conjecture.” § 768.74(5)( . . . by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons.” § 768.74 . . . The trial court should have ordered an additur and, pursuant to section 768.74(4), if the defendants . . .

BEAUVAIS, v. EDELL,, 760 So. 2d 262 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . Instead it was a motion for an additur expressly made pursuant to sections 768.043 and 768.74. . . . Plaintiffs motion for an additur was made pursuant to section 768.74 and its counterpart, section 786.043 . . . See TRIA § 768.74(6). . . . Section 768.74, however, is drafted to a contrary purpose. . . . We note that if sections 768.043 and 768.74 were in conflict section 768.043 would control. . . . Instead, in section 768.74, authorizing remittitur and additur, the legislature adhered to the "discretionary . . . standard of review for trial courts.” § 768.74(6), Fla. . . .

MARLO, v. K- MART CORPORATION,, 756 So. 2d 213 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . Our review of the record reveals no violation by the jury of the standards of section 768.74(5)(a-e), . . .

ITT HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHEAST, v. OWENS A., 760 So. 2d 210 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . Judge Hazouri noted that the language of Section 768.043(1) is virtually identical to Section 768.74, . . .

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, v. D. BLACKMON,, 754 So. 2d 840 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . . § 768.74(1) Fla. Stat. (1995). . . .

FRANKLIN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a v. J. DAVY v., 753 So. 2d 581 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . — the order under review— granting a remittitur or a new trial on damages only pursuant to section 768.74 . . . It is further ordered and adjudged, upon consideration of the factors set forth in section 768.74, Florida . . . its motion for new trial on liability by limiting the new trial to damages only pursuant to section 768.74 . . .

JARVIS v. TENET HEALTH SYSTEMS HOSPITAL, INC. d b a, 743 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . , 579 So.2d 748 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), for its failure to follow the mandatory requirement of section 768.74 . . . As the majority points out, the pertinent part of section 768.74(2) provides: “If the party adversely . . . additur does not agree, the court shall order a new trial in the cause on the issue of damages only.” § 768.74 . . . However, in Watson there was no issue of an additur, and thus no need for the application of section 768.74 . . . Prior to the enactment of section 768.74, the legislature enacted section 768.043(1), Florida Statutes . . . Section 768.74(4), Florida Statutes addresses the procedure to be followed for remittitur and additur . . . awarded is excessive or inadequate, it shall order an additur or remittitur, as the case may be.” § 768.74 . . . addi-tur does not agree, the court shall order a •new trial in the cause on the issue of damages only.” § 768.74 . . .

WAL- MART STORES, INC. a v. R. COLEMAN, 745 So. 2d 423 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . The court should, therefore, have ordered a remittitur pursuant to section 768.74, Florida Statutes ( . . .

B. BROWN, v. ESTATE OF A. P. STUCKEY, Sr., 749 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1999)

. . . The procedure under section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1997), for remittitur and addi-tur apply only upon . . .

CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. a v. PALANK, a a, 743 So. 2d 556 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . See § 768.74(5)(a)-(e), Fla. Stat. . . .

F. KAINE, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY,, 735 So. 2d 599 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . to $50,000, the trial court abused its discretion by not following the criteria set out in section 768.74 . . . In conjunction with this, section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1997), lists the criteria to be followed . . . Section 768.74(5) states, in pertinent part: (5) In determining whether an award is excessive or inadequate . . . The trial court made no findings of fact to satisfy the requirements of section 768.74 that the damage . . . written order did not delineate the specific record evidence of the excessiveness, as required by section 768.74 . . .

PIAMBA CORTES, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. a, 177 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 1999)

. . . . § 768.74(1) (conferring discretion to courts to review damages awards to ensure that they are neither . . .

K. FRAVEL, D. M. D. v. HAUGHEY,, 727 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . Section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1995), provides, in relevant part: Remittitur and Additur.- (1) In . . . See § 768.74(5)(e), Fla. Stat. (1995). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying Dr. . . . See § 768.74(4), Fla. Stat. (1995). . . .

AURBACH v. GALLINA,, 721 So. 2d 756 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Section 768.74(1), Florida Statutes (1997), authorizes additur in cases where the trial court determines . . . Section 768.74 did not alter the “longstanding principles” governing a trial court’s deference to a jury . . . An award that is inadequate as a matter of law may be ameliorated by additur under section 768.74. . . . However, the only pleading requirement in section 768.74 is that a “proper motion” be made for remittitur . . . See § 768.74(4), Fla.Stat. (1997). . . .

N. SILVERMAN, v. M. GOCKMAN, Jr., 714 So. 2d 671 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . We think the trial court overlooked some of the criteria which, according to section 768.74(5), Florida . . . We point out in particular the criterion stated at section 768.74(5)(d): ‘Whether the amount awarded . . . consistent with the above, and, if appellant does not agree to the additur, a new trial on damages only. § 768.74 . . .

FOOD LION, v. JACKSON,, 712 So. 2d 800 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . I would relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court for compliance with section 768.74, Florida Statutes . . . the additur, the trial court should order a new trial on damages alone, as required by the statute. § 768.74 . . . See § 768.74, Fla. Stat. (1997). . . . district remanded for a new trial on damages and liability while recognizing the provisions of section 768.74 . . . We also recognize that section 768.74 instructs that the adverse party be given the choice of accepting . . .

RAMEY, v. WINN DIXIE MONTGOMERY, INC., 710 So. 2d 191 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Section 768.74, Florida Statutes, requires the trial court to review an award of money damages for excessiveness . . .

DOUGHTY a v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA a k a CIGNA,, 701 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . Although section 768.74, Florida Statutes, (1995), appears to require a trial court to find a verdict . . . Leasing Co., Inc., 668 So.2d 189, 191 (Fla.1996), the Florida Supreme Court concluded that section 768.74 . . .

SOUTHLAND CORPORATION, v. CRANE,, 699 So. 2d 332 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . rejection of the addi-thr, with a rejection resulting in a new trial on damages pursuant to section 768.74 . . .

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. MANASSE,, 681 So. 2d 779 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . . §§ 768.74(6), 768.77, Fla. Stat. (1993). . . . intention of the Legislature that awards of damages be subject to close scrutiny by the courts.” § 768.74 . . .

POOLE, v. VETERANS AUTO SALES AND LEASING COMPANY, INC., 668 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1996)

. . . district court of appeal certified the following question to be of great public importance: If section 768.74 . . . The district court analyzed the pain and suffering award in light of the factors set forth in section 768.74 . . . Section 768.74, Florida Statutes (1993), provides that the trial judge shall grant a remittitur or additur . . .

CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, v. E. HACKMAN, 672 So. 2d 42 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . On remand, the trial court shall enter an order of remittitur pursuant to section 768.74, Florida Statutes . . .

WADDELL, v. SHONEY S, INC., 664 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . Shoney’s then filed a motion for new trial or for remittitur pursuant to subsections 768.74(5) and (6 . . .

AIRCRAFT SERVICE INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. JACKSON,, 768 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . the verdict was excessive, the lower court was obligated to look to and follow sections 768.043 and 768.74 . . .