Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-10-103 (2026)
Remittitur under protest - Review by supreme court
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) If the judgment of the trial court with regard to a remittitur is affirmed in the court of appeals, so that a party is required to make a remittitur or suffer a new trial, as in the judgment of the trial court, or if, by the opinion of the court of appeals, a further or a larger remittitur is required of the party in whose favor the verdict was rendered, or if after the case was tried in the lower court by the trial judge without a jury, or if after the case was tried in the lower court with a jury and no remittitur was suggested by the trial judge, a remittitur is first suggested or required in the court of appeals, on penalty of granting a new trial, then in each and all of these events the party in whose favor the verdict or judgment has been rendered may make the remittitur under protest in the court of appeals, and take the case, by application for permission to appeal, for review upon that point, to the supreme court.
- (b) If, in the opinion of the supreme court, the verdict should not have been reduced, and the court of appeals was in error in affirming the action of the trial court as to the remittitur, or if the court of appeals was, itself, in error in suggesting a remittitur for the first time in that court, or in suggesting a further or larger remittitur than that suggested in the trial court, and if the judgment is otherwise correct, the case shall be reversed to that extent, and judgment shall be rendered in the supreme court for the full amount originally awarded by the jury or the trial judge sitting without a jury, as the case may be.
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). “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). “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). “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). “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). “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). “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). “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). “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). “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). “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). “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.