Court Opinion

ID: 9628071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:06:46.938974+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:39.987708
License: Public Domain

Holmes, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur with the result reached by the majority and with most of the majority opinion. I believe, however, that the language in Syllabus ¶ 1 and that portion of the opinion which reads:
“[W]here a verdict is reduced and judgment entered for the residue on motion of the party against whom the verdict was entered, said party has neither consented to nor acquiesced in the new judgment, and is not barred from appeal,”
is overly broad and I respectfully dissent therefrom. In my opinion if a losing party files a motion for remittitur seeking reduction of the judgment to a specific figure or range of figures and the court grants the same, then such party should be precluded from an appeal. For example, if Country Club, having sought a remittitur to the $45,000 to $50,000 range, had received a reduction to $50,000 or less then I would hold that the right to appeal should be denied. I am not certain that the language of the majority would reach such a result.