Dimick v. Schiedt

Dimick v. Schiedt
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided January 7, 1935
Full case name	Dimick v. Schiedt
Citations	293 U.S. 474 ( more )
Case history
Prior	70 F.2d 558
Holding
Additur is a violation of the Seventh Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes Associate Justices Willis Van Devanter  · James C. McReynolds Louis Brandeis  · George Sutherland Pierce Butler  · Harlan F. Stone Owen Roberts  · Benjamin N. Cardozo
Case opinions
Majority	Sutherland
Dissent	Stone
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. VII

Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474(1935), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that additur is a violation of the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Additur is the practice of a trial judge adding damages additional to the original amount awarded by the jury. ^{[1] [2]}

Background

Schiedt sued Dimick in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts to recover damages for a personal injury resulting from the alleged negligent operation of an automobile on a public highway in Massachusetts. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Schiedt for the sum of $500. Schiedt moved for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence, that it was a compromise verdict, and that the damages allowed were inadequate. ^[1]

The trial court ordered a new trial upon the last-named ground unless Dimick would consent to an increase of the damages to the sum of $1,500. Schiedt's consent was neither requested nor given. Dimick, however, consented to the increase, and, in accordance with the order of the court, a denial of the motion for new trial automatically followed. Schiedt appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, where the judgment was reversed, the court holding that the conditional order violated the Seventh Amendment with respect of the right of trial by jury. That court recognized the doctrine, supported by Supreme Court precedent, that, in the case of an excessive verdict, it is within the power of the trial court to grant defendant's motion for a new trial unless plaintiff remit the amount deemed to be excessive, but held that the trial court was without power to condition the allowance of plaintiff's motion for a new trial upon the refusal of defendant to consent to an increase in the amount of damages. ^[1]

Opinion of the court

The Supreme Court issued an opinion on January 7, 1935. ^[1]

Subsequent developments

The prohibition of additur in Dimick has been criticized since it was issued, but it has never been overturned. State courts are free to recognize additur ^[2] because the Seventh Amendment is not incorporated against the states. ^[3]

The opposite of additur, remittitur , has been widely adopted throughout the American courts, both federal and state. Dicta in Dimick supported its use. ^[4] Some legal scholars have questioned the constitutionality of the use of remittitur in the federal courts, as a violation of the plaintiff's Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, ^{[4] [5]} but federal appellate courts have not examined that question.

References

1. Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474 (1935).
2. Richard D. Freer, A Short and Happy Guide to Civil Procedure 143 (2nd ed. 2019).
3. Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90 (1876) (holding that states "are left to regulate [civil] trials in their own courts in their own way. A trial by jury in suits at common law pending in the State courts is not, therefore, a privilege or immunity of national citizenship.").
4. Thomas, Suja (2003). "Re-Examining the Constitutionality of Remittitur Under the Seventh Amendment" (PDF). Ohio State Law Journal. 64: 731–816.
5. Kadane, Joseph (2014). "Mr. Justice Story Invents American Remittiturs: "The Very Limits of the Law"" (PDF). British Journal of American Legal Studies. 3 (2): 313–334.

External links

• Text of Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474(1935) is available from: Cornell Findlaw Justia

This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain .