Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 6-807 (2026)

Limitation on the recovery of damages — Reducing or increasing an award.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Limitation on the recovery of damages — Reducing or increasing an award.

(1) In all civil actions in which there has been an award of damages as herein defined, the trial judge may, in his discretion, and after considering all of the evidence, alter such portion of the award representing damages if the amount awarded; (a) is unsupported or unjustified by the clear weight of the evidence; or (b) is so unreasonably disproportionate to the loss or damage suffered or to be suffered as to be unconscionable or so as to shock the conscience of the court; or (c) is the product of a legal error or mistake during the presentation of the evidence or submission of the case to the trier of fact; or (d) is demonstrated to be more likely than not the product of passion or prejudice on the part of the trier of fact.

(2) If the court finds that the award of damages is unreasonably great or small by reason of any one or more of the factors set forth above, then the district court may exercise its discretion to reduce or increase such award in order to make the same consistent with the losses as shown by the evidence. In the event that the court shall enter any such order, it shall make detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law explaining the reason for its action, the amount of any increase or reduction, and the basis therefore.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1990–2024 · leading case: Litke v. Munkhoff, 417 P.3d 224 (Idaho 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Litke v. Munkhoff, 417 P.3d 224 (Idaho 2018). · cites it 14× “2d at 1198 ; I.C. § 6-807. A remittitur is only an alternative to a new trial, and the decision to reduce a damage award is discretionary.”

Hei v. Holzer, 181 P.3d 489 (Idaho 2008). · cites it 20× “However, the jury awarded no damages. Hei filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to IRCP 59(a), an alternative motion for additur pursuant to IRCP 59.”

Kayser v. McClary, 875 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (D. Idaho 2012). · cites it 14× “Increasing Punitive Damages Commensurate with the Kaysers’ Attorneys’ Fees The Kaysers seek to amend the portion of the Judgment regarding punitive damages to include at least the amount of their attorneys’ fees.”

SRM Arms, Inc. v. GSA Direct, LLC, 494 P.3d 744 (Idaho 2021). · cites it 4× “See also I.C. § 6-807(2) (“the district court may exercise its discretion to reduce or increase such award in order to make the same consistent with the losses as shown by the evidence”).”

Snap! Mobile v. Vertical Raise, 544 P.3d 714 (Idaho 2024). · cites it 2× “3d 224, 233 (2018); see I.C. § 6-807(2). Under the abuse of discretion standard, this Court conducts a four-part inquiry to determine whether the trial court: “(1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion; (3)…”

Bevan v. Vassar Farms, Inc., 793 P.2d 711 (Idaho 1990). “§ 6-801 through § 6-807. The language of I.C. § 5-311 specifically states as a condition of recovery that the wrongful act of another must have caused the death of the decedent.”

Elosu v. Middlefork Ranch Inc. (D. Idaho 2023). · cites it 2× “Idaho Code § 6-807 . 17 Importantly, MFR did not have an expert of their own to opine on the costs of rebuilding Cabin #16.”

— Idaho Code § 6-807(1) — 1 case

Hei v. Holzer, 181 P.3d 489 (Idaho 2008). “However, the jury awarded no damages. Hei filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to IRCP 59(a), an alternative motion for additur pursuant to IRCP 59.”

— Idaho Code § 6-807(2) — 3 cases

Litke v. Munkhoff, 417 P.3d 224 (Idaho 2018). “2d at 1198 ; I.C. § 6-807. A remittitur is only an alternative to a new trial, and the decision to reduce a damage award is discretionary.”

SRM Arms, Inc. v. GSA Direct, LLC, 494 P.3d 744 (Idaho 2021). “See also I.C. § 6-807(2) (“the district court may exercise its discretion to reduce or increase such award in order to make the same consistent with the losses as shown by the evidence”).”

Snap! Mobile v. Vertical Raise, 544 P.3d 714 (Idaho 2024). “3d 224, 233 (2018); see I.C. § 6-807(2). Under the abuse of discretion standard, this Court conducts a four-part inquiry to determine whether the trial court: “(1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion; (3)…”

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.