Where interest before judgment is not prayed for as an element of damages, action of trial court in ordering remittitur will not be disturbed upon ground that party was entitled to interest upon claim before judgment. Welch v. Reeves, 142 Neb. 171, 5 N.W.2d 275 (1942).

Where recovery is had upon cause of action for wrongful death and also for cause of action for pain and suffering sustained by the deceased until his death and for medical and burial expenses, remittitur ordered by trial court of lump sum from verdict was treated as applying to latter cause of action. Vanderlippe v. Midwest Studios, 137 Neb. 289, 289 N.W. 341 (1939).

Request to restore amount remitted was denied in negligence case. Banta v. McChesney, 127 Neb. 764, 257 N.W. 68 (1934).

Where trial court ordered remittitur cutting verdict by half, Supreme Court will vacate that portion of remittitur which is excessive. Mangiameli v. Ariano, 126 Neb. 629, 253 N.W. 871 (1934).

Where issues of fact are controverted and findings of jury under the court's instructions warrant recovery, trial court may not require successful party to file remittitur of such recovery. Loy v. Storz Electric Refrigeration Co., 122 Neb. 357, 240 N.W. 423 (1932).

Supreme Court may reduce amount of remittitur ordered by the district court. Christoffersen v. Weir, 110 Neb. 390, 193 N.W. 922 (1923); Miller v. Central Taxi Co., 110 Neb. 306, 193 N.W. 919 (1923).

Order requiring remittitur resting on substantial basis in the evidence will not be reversed. Hellerich v. Central Granaries Co., 104 Neb. 818, 178 N.W. 919 (1920).

Where not convinced that trial court erred in requiring remittitur, order will not be disturbed. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Queenan, 102 Neb. 391, 167 N.W. 410 (1918); Wunrath v. Peoples Furniture & Carpet Co., 100 Neb. 539, 160 N.W. 971 (1916).