Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-10-103 (2026)

Remittitur under protest - Review by supreme court

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Acts 1911, ch. 29, § 2; Shan., § 4852a2; Code 1932, § 8988; Acts 1949, ch. 253, § 2; C. Supp. 1950, § 8988; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 27-119; Acts 1981, ch. 449, § 2.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases, 1990–2017 · 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). · cites it 16× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-10-103 (a) (2009). The language used by the Court of Appeals may imply that this statute grants the Court of Appeals the authority to suggest a remittitur.”
Aundrey Meals Ex Rel. William Meals v. Ford Motor Co., 417 S.W.3d 414 (Tenn. 2013). · cites it 5× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-10-103 (a) (2009). Specifically, if after the case was tried in the lower court with a jury and no remittitur was suggested by the trial judge, a remitti-tur is first suggested or required in the [C]ourt of [A]ppeals, on penalty of granting a new trial,…”
Duran v. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc., 271 S.W.3d 178 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “This court has the authority under Tenn.Code Ann. § 20-10-103(a) (1994) to suggest a further remittitur.”
GRW Enter., Inc. v. Davis, 797 S.W.2d 606 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-10-103 (Supp.1989) empowers us to suggest a remittitur in order to do equal justice to the parties.”
Coffey v. Fayette Tubular Prods., 929 S.W.2d 326 (Tenn. 1996). · cites it 2× “The plaintiff accepted the suggested remittitur under protest, Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-10-103 ; and both parties applied to this Court for permission to appeal pursuant to Tenn.”
Long v. Mattingly, 797 S.W.2d 889 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 20-10-102(b). If, after reviewing the record, we determine that the adjusted damage award is still excessive, we have the prerogative under Tenn.”
Long v. Mattingly, 817 S.W.2d 325 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 5× “Thereafter (date not shown in record) the plaintiffs filed with the Supreme Court an “Application for Permission to Appeal” stating: Plaintiffs/appellees make the remit-titur suggested by the Court of Appeals under protest in the Court of Appeals and file this application for…”
Holt v. Compton Sales Co., 900 S.W.2d 291 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). “Although not specifically statutorily authorized, T.C.A. 20-10-103(a) 2 implicitly recognizes the authority of an appellate court to grant a further remittitur when the award, even as remitted by the Trial Court, is deemed excessive.”
Donriel A. Borne v. Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc - Concurring in Part & Dissenting in Part (Tenn. 2017). · cites it 6× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-10-103 (a);10 Meals, 417 S.”
Bobby Gerald Riley, & wife, Tanya Riley, Individually & as next of kin for Hunter Riley v. James Orr (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 7× “See T.C.A. § 20-10-103 (2009). -14- The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remittitur is suggested, as set forth above, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.”
Bobby Gerald Riley, & wife, Tanya Riley, Individually & as next of kin for Hunter Riley v. James Orr (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 7× “See T.C.A. § 20-10-103 (2009). -14- The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remittitur is suggested, as set forth above, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.”
Paul M. Martin v. Perma-Chink Sys., Inc. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-10-103 (a). Meals ex rel.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-10-103(a) — 8 cases
Donriel A. Borne v. Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc., 532 S.W.3d 274 (Tenn. 2017). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-10-103 (a) (2009). The language used by the Court of Appeals may imply that this statute grants the Court of Appeals the authority to suggest a remittitur.”
Duran v. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc., 271 S.W.3d 178 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). “This court has the authority under Tenn.Code Ann. § 20-10-103(a) (1994) to suggest a further remittitur.”
Long v. Mattingly, 797 S.W.2d 889 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 20-10-102(b). If, after reviewing the record, we determine that the adjusted damage award is still excessive, we have the prerogative under Tenn.”
Aundrey Meals Ex Rel. William Meals v. Ford Motor Co., 417 S.W.3d 414 (Tenn. 2013). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-10-103 (a) (2009). Specifically, if after the case was tried in the lower court with a jury and no remittitur was suggested by the trial judge, a remitti-tur is first suggested or required in the [C]ourt of [A]ppeals, on penalty of granting a new trial,…”
Long v. Mattingly, 817 S.W.2d 325 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). “Thereafter (date not shown in record) the plaintiffs filed with the Supreme Court an “Application for Permission to Appeal” stating: Plaintiffs/appellees make the remit-titur suggested by the Court of Appeals under protest in the Court of Appeals and file this application for…”
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.