Dimick v. Schiedt
United States Supreme Court
293 U.S. 474 (1935)
After a jury awarded Schiedt (plaintiff, though styled as defendant in a countersuit posture) only $500 in a negligence suit, he moved for a new trial arguing the damages were inadequate, and the district court granted a new trial unless Dimick (defendant) would consent to increase the damages to $1,500 — a condition imposed without ever asking for or obtaining Schiedt's own consent; Dimick agreed to the increase, the new-trial motion was denied, and the court of appeals reversed, holding the conditional order violated the Seventh Amendment.
Whether a trial court has the power to condition the allowance of a plaintiff's motion for a new trial upon the refusal of the defendant to consent to an increase in the amount of damages.