<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Lawyers USA Online &#187; remittitur</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/tag/remittitur/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com</link>
	<description>Your Business Partner</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 18:13:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Benchmarks: Lawyer’s theatrics didn’t justify $4M cut in verdict&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/11/benchmarks-lawyers-theatrics-didnt-justify-4m-cut-in-verdict/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/11/benchmarks-lawyers-theatrics-didnt-justify-4m-cut-in-verdict/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:43:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury and Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney misconduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[remittitur]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial advocacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wrongful death]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=90506</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The Virginia Supreme Court has restored $4 million to a wrongful death verdict, deciding that the jury’s award could not be reduced simply because of the trial antics of the plaintiff’s lawyer.</p> <p>On June 21, 2007, William Sprouse was driving a loaded concrete truck east on the Thomas Jefferson Parkway <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/11/benchmarks-lawyers-theatrics-didnt-justify-4m-cut-in-verdict/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/11/benchmarks-lawyers-theatrics-didnt-justify-4m-cut-in-verdict/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Age bias plaintiff’s emotional distress damages cut again&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/11/02/age-bias-plaintiffs-emotional-distress-damages-cut-again/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/11/02/age-bias-plaintiffs-emotional-distress-damages-cut-again/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2012 13:23:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sylvia Hsieh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[This Month's Edition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[age bias]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[age discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[emotional distress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[remittitur]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retaliation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=88915</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A 63-year-old age discrimination plaintiff who won a $2.25 million jury award for retaliation will have his emotional distress damages cut for the second time, the 1st Circuit has ruled.</p> <p><strong><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2011/04/13/federal-jury-awards-225-million-for-retaliation/">A federal jury awarded the plaintiff</a></strong> $1 million for emotional distress ($750,000 in front pay and $500,000 in back <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/11/02/age-bias-plaintiffs-emotional-distress-damages-cut-again/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/11/02/age-bias-plaintiffs-emotional-distress-damages-cut-again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court reinstates $675K music downloading verdict&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2011/09/22/court-reinstates-675k-music-downloading-verdict/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2011/09/22/court-reinstates-675k-music-downloading-verdict/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:56:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[This Month's Edition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[music downloading]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[remittitur]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2011/09/22/court-reinstates-675k-music-downloading-verdict/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A judge could not reduce a copyright verdict against a music downloader on constitutional grounds without first addressing the defendant’s motion for remittitur, the 1st Circuit has ruled in reversing judgment.</p> <p>A number of companies in the recording industry sued under the Copyright Act, alleging that the defendant infringed the <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2011/09/22/court-reinstates-675k-music-downloading-verdict/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2011/09/22/court-reinstates-675k-music-downloading-verdict/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fosamax verdict reduced, counsel sanctioned&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2010/10/07/fosamax-verdict-reduced-counsel-sanctioned/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2010/10/07/fosamax-verdict-reduced-counsel-sanctioned/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Oct 2010 19:12:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Correy Stephenson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury and Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Your Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fosamax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[remittitur]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sanctions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=74124</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/files/2010/05/fosamax.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-69444" src="http://lawyersusaonline.com/files/2010/05/fosamax.jpg" alt="" width="150" height="150" /></a>An $8 million verdict for a plaintiff who suffered from osteonecrosis of the jaw after taking Fosamax is excessive, and the plaintiff must choose between a new trial on damages or a remittitur to $1.5 million, a U.S. District Court has <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2010/10/07/fosamax-verdict-reduced-counsel-sanctioned/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></img></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2010/10/07/fosamax-verdict-reduced-counsel-sanctioned/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
