Appeal Bond Reform

Many states require defendants to post an appeal bond – sometimes equal to 150 percent of a verdict – in order to secure the right to appeal.

The Problem

In an era when billion-dollar verdicts are no longer uncommon, appealing a jury verdict can force an individual, a company, or an industry into bankruptcy.

ATRA’s Position

ATRA supports appeal bond reform legislation that limits the size of an appeal bond when a company is not liquidating its assets or attempting to flee from justice.

Search Through ATRA Reforms

Search through all of ATRA's reforms around Appeal Bond Reform
Appeal Bond Reform: SB 1687 (2003)

Limits the amount a defendant can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal to $75 million.

Tennessee
Appeal Bond Reform: Sup. Ct. Rule 03-13 (2003)
The South Dakota Supreme Court promulgated a rule which limits the amount a defendant can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal to $25 mill...
South Dakota
Appeal Bond Reform: H.B. 3775 (2011)
Limits the amount of an appeal bond to $25 million for all judgmnets against defendants with 50+ employees and gross revenue of $5 million, and $1 mil...
South Carolina
Appeal Bond Reform: H. 4823 (2004)
Provides that judgments are to be stayed during the appeal of a judgment by signatories to the Master Settlement Agreement.  Such defendants are not r...
South Carolina
Appeal Bond Reform- S.B. 2509 (2008); R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-133-11.1

Limits the amount a signatory to the Master Settlement Agreement can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal to $50 million.

Rhode Island
Appeal Bond Reform: H.B. 1718 (2003)

Limits the amount a signatory to the Master Settlement Agreement can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal to $100 million.

Pennsylvania
Appeal Bond Reform: H.B. 2368 (2003)

Limits the amount a signatory to the Master Settlement Agreement can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal to $150 million.

Oregon
Appeal Bond Reform: HB 1603 (2009)
Limits the amount a defendant can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal to $25 million.  Eliminates bonding requirement to appeal a punitiv...
Oklahoma
Appeal Bond Reform: H.B. 1275 (2004)

Broadens the cap put in place in 2001 to include MSA affiliaties.

Oklahoma
Appeal Bond Reform: HB 2661 (2004)
The court is given discretion to lower the bond if the judgment debtor can show that it is likely to suffer substantial economic harm if required to p...
Oklahoma


Appeal Bond Reform News and Press

Explore ATRA's most recent press releases and blogs around Appeal Bond Reform

Search Resources

Search through all of ATRA's Amicus Briefs, Reports, and Other Resources around Appeal Bond Reform
Search All
States
Status
Post Types
Date
Sommerville v. Union Carbide and Covestro LLC
(4th Circ., filed September 9, 2025): Supporting rehearing en banc. Arguing that Article III standing requires an injury that is concrete and particu...
4th Circuit
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
Ortiz v. Daimler Trucks North America LLC
(CA., filed September 4, 2025): Urging the court to review the lower court’s decision because in combination with the decision in Gilead, it threaten...
California
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Carey, II et. al.
(KY., filed August 26, 2025) : Arguing that in a wide range of cases, identification of suspicious claims activity has led to investigations that hav...
Kentucky
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Comment on “A Critical Review of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate” Report
This comment is on behalf of the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA), a broad-based coalition of businesses, associations, and professional firms...
Gill v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
(Pa. App., filed June 23, 2025): Arguing that trial courts must zealously ensure the integrity and fairness of the jury system throughout the trial p...
Pennsylvania
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
CareFirst of Maryland, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Biotech Inc.
(E.D. Va., filed August 15, 2025): Arguing that Plaintiffs urge an unprecedented theory that a defendant can violate antitrust law by incidentally a...
Eastern District of Virginia
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position
Berk v. Choy
(U.S., filed August 7, 2025): Arguing that State legislatures enacted affidavit of merit statutes to prevent meritless lawsuits that threaten the ava...
SCOTUS
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
U.S. ex rel. Penelow v. Janssen Products LP.
(3rd Circ., filed July 21, 2025): Arguing that the qui tam provisions violate Article II’s vesting clause, the Appointments Clause, and the Take Care...
3rd Circuit
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Anne Arundel County v. Express Scripts
(Md., filed May 29, 2025): Arguing that the Court should join other states in affirming that public nuisance law cannot be converted into an all-enco...
Maryland
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Geico Casualty Company v. Jilianne Warner, et. al.
(Ky. App., filed May 28, 2025): Arguing that the court erred in finding that heavy motor trucks, such as tow trucks, are inherently dangerous.  The t...
Kentucky
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided



The American Tort Reform Association is the nation’s first organization dedicated exclusively to reforming the civil justice system through education and legislative enactment.

To receive occasional updates from ATRA, enter your email address:
By subscribing, you agree to our Privacy Policy and consent to receive updates.
© 2026 ATRA. All rights reserved.