Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-10-102 (2026)
Remittitur
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) In all jury trials had in civil actions, after the verdict has been rendered and on motion for a new trial, when the trial judge is of the opinion that the verdict in favor of a party should be reduced and a remittitur is suggested by the trial judge on that account, with the proviso that in case the party in whose favor the verdict has been rendered refuses to make the remittitur, a new trial will be awarded, the party in whose favor such verdict has been rendered may make such remittitur under protest, and appeal from the action of the trial judge to the court of appeals.
- (b) The court of appeals shall review the action of the trial court suggesting a remittitur using the standard of review provided for in T.R.A.P. 13(d) applicable to decisions of the trial court sitting without a jury. If, in the opinion of the court of appeals, the verdict of the jury should not have been reduced, but the judgment of the trial court is correct in other respects, the case shall be reversed to that extent, and judgment shall be rendered in the court of appeals for the full amount originally awarded by the jury in the trial court.
Acts 1911, ch. 29, § 1; Shan., § 4852a1; Code 1932, § 8987; Acts 1949, ch. 253, § 1; C. Supp. 1950, § 8987; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 27-118; Acts 1987, ch. 232, § 2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 58
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2022 · leading case: Donriel A. Borne v. Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc., 532 S.W.3d 274 (Tenn. 2017).
Donriel A. Borne v. Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc., 532 S.W.3d 274 (Tenn. 2017). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-10-102 (a) (2009). Celadon appealed.”
Miller v. Choo Choo Partners, L.P., 73 S.W.3d 897 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “See T.C.A. § 20-10-102(a) (1994). If the suggestion of a remittitur is refused by the party in whose favor the verdict was rendered, a new trial must be granted.”
Aundrey Meals Ex Rel. William Meals v. Ford Motor Co., 417 S.W.3d 414 (Tenn. 2013). “The appellate court’s standard of review depends on whether the trial judge suggested a remittitur or affirmed the verdict in his or her role as thirteenth juror. Where the trial court has suggested a remittitur, [t]he [C]ourt of [A]ppeals shall review the action of the trial…”
Palanki Ex Rel. Palanki v. Vanderbilt Univ., 215 S.W.3d 380 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “Alternatively, the court may suggest a re-mittitur of the jury award, Tenn.Code Ann. § 20-10-102(a), to correct an excessive jury verdict without the time and expense of a new trial.”
Mitch Goree v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 490 S.W.3d 413 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-10-102 (b). Long, 797 S.”
Grandstaff v. Hawks, 36 S.W.3d 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 20-10-102(a) (1994). If the party in whose favor the verdict has been rendered refuses to make the remittitur, the trial court must grant a new trial.”
Karen Johnson v. Beverly Nunis & Farmer's Ins. Exch., 383 S.W.3d 122 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 20-10-102(a). In the case at bar, Johnson accepted the trial court’s suggestion of re-mittitur under protest, and then appealed to this Court.”
Benson v. Tennessee Valley Elec. Coop., 868 S.W.2d 630 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993). “§ 20-10-102 empowers the court to suggest a remittitur when the jury verdict is within the range of reasonableness and that the proper appellate review when both the trial court’s remitted verdict and the jury’s verdict are within the range of reasonableness is to determine from…”
Hunter v. Ura, 163 S.W.3d 686 (Tenn. 2005). “Our review of a trial court's suggested remittitur is "de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.”
Overstreet v. Shoney's, Inc., 4 S.W.3d 694 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-10-102 (1994); Hardesty v.”
Bates v. Jackson, 639 S.W.2d 925 (Tenn. 1982). “” T.C.A., § 20-10-102. Recently, we said, in Smith v.”
Foster v. Amcon Int'l, Inc., 621 S.W.2d 142 (Tenn. 1981). “See also, T.C.A. § 20-10-102. In so holding, we do not intend to in any way alter our position that in personal injury cases the amount of compensation is primarily for the jury, and next to the jury, the most competent person to pass on the matter is the trial judge.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-10-102(a) — 9 cases
Miller v. Choo Choo Partners, L.P., 73 S.W.3d 897 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “See T.C.A. § 20-10-102(a) (1994). If the suggestion of a remittitur is refused by the party in whose favor the verdict was rendered, a new trial must be granted.”
Aundrey Meals Ex Rel. William Meals v. Ford Motor Co., 417 S.W.3d 414 (Tenn. 2013). “The appellate court’s standard of review depends on whether the trial judge suggested a remittitur or affirmed the verdict in his or her role as thirteenth juror. Where the trial court has suggested a remittitur, [t]he [C]ourt of [A]ppeals shall review the action of the trial…”
Grandstaff v. Hawks, 36 S.W.3d 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 20-10-102(a) (1994). If the party in whose favor the verdict has been rendered refuses to make the remittitur, the trial court must grant a new trial.”
Karen Johnson v. Beverly Nunis & Farmer's Ins. Exch., 383 S.W.3d 122 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 20-10-102(a). In the case at bar, Johnson accepted the trial court’s suggestion of re-mittitur under protest, and then appealed to this Court.”
Benson v. Tennessee Valley Elec. Coop., 868 S.W.2d 630 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993). “§ 20-10-102 empowers the court to suggest a remittitur when the jury verdict is within the range of reasonableness and that the proper appellate review when both the trial court’s remitted verdict and the jury’s verdict are within the range of reasonableness is to determine from…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-10-102(a)(1997) — 1 case
City of Gatlinburg v. Fox, 962 S.W.2d 479 (Tenn. 1998).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-10-102(b) — 20 cases
Donriel A. Borne v. Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc., 532 S.W.3d 274 (Tenn. 2017). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-10-102 (a) (2009). Celadon appealed.”
Palanki Ex Rel. Palanki v. Vanderbilt Univ., 215 S.W.3d 380 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “Alternatively, the court may suggest a re-mittitur of the jury award, Tenn.Code Ann. § 20-10-102(a), to correct an excessive jury verdict without the time and expense of a new trial.”
Miller v. Choo Choo Partners, L.P., 73 S.W.3d 897 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “See T.C.A. § 20-10-102(a) (1994). If the suggestion of a remittitur is refused by the party in whose favor the verdict was rendered, a new trial must be granted.”
Aundrey Meals Ex Rel. William Meals v. Ford Motor Co., 417 S.W.3d 414 (Tenn. 2013). “The appellate court’s standard of review depends on whether the trial judge suggested a remittitur or affirmed the verdict in his or her role as thirteenth juror. Where the trial court has suggested a remittitur, [t]he [C]ourt of [A]ppeals shall review the action of the trial…”
Karen Johnson v. Beverly Nunis & Farmer's Ins. Exch., 383 S.W.3d 122 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 20-10-102(a). In the case at bar, Johnson accepted the trial court’s suggestion of re-mittitur under protest, and then appealed to this Court.”
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.