Legal Opinion · Dissent

Wiley v. Homfeld

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided November 3, 2009No. WD 69560, WD 69599Published

1DissentJames Edward Welsh, Judge

The Missouri Supreme Court once before attempted to abolish the doctrine of remittitur, but the Missouri legislature made it clear that remittitur is a viable *156doctrine by its enactment of section 537.068, RSMo, in 1987. The majority opinion in this case, however, attempts to emasculate the doctrine and render it meaningless. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.

To read the statutory language of section 587.068, RSMo 2000, that “[a] court may enter a remittitur order if, after reviewing the evidence in support of the jury’s verdict, the court finds that the jury’s verdict is excessive,” as…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Firestone v. Crown Center Redevelopment Corp.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1985
  2. Alcorn v. Union Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 2001
  3. Fust v. FrancoisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1995
  4. Steuernagel v. St. Louis Public Service Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1951
  5. Barnett v. La Societe Anonyme Turbomeca FranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1997

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API