What is the difference between remand and remittitur in appellate practice?

• A. Remand sends the case back to the trial court for further proceedings; remittitur reduces a jury award to what the court finds reasonable.
• B. Remand increases the award; remittitur sends to trial court.
• C. Remand concerns criminal sentences; remittitur concerns civil damages.
• D. Remand is about admissibility of evidence; remittitur about jurisdiction.

Answer: (A)

In appellate practice, two distinct post-judgment tools address different problems that can come up on appeal. Remand means the appeals court sends the case back to the trial court to carry out further proceedings or take steps required by the appellate ruling. That could include ordering a new trial on some issues, or directing the trial court to make additional findings consistent with the appellate decision.

Remittitur, on the other hand, deals with the amount of damages in civil cases. The appellate court reviews the jury award and, if it finds the amount excessive or not supported by the evidence, reduces it to a reasonable figure. The party can accept that reduced amount and judgment is entered accordingly, or, if they don’t accept, the case may be remanded for a new trial on damages (and sometimes on other issues).

So the statement that correctly captures the difference is: remand sends the case back for further proceedings in the trial court; remittitur reduces a jury award to what the court finds reasonable. The other options mix up the purposes—remand isn’t about increasing awards, remittitur isn’t a general directive to return to trial, and the other choices muddle criminal versus civil or evidentiary/jurisdiction questions.