Walmart Stores East, LP v. Bettie Leverette - Case Vacated and Remanded

GA Court of Appeals Opinions

Filed February 17th, 2026

Detected February 26th, 2026

Summary

The Court of Appeals of Georgia vacated its prior decision and remanded the case of Walmart Stores East, LP v. Bettie Leverette. The Supreme Court had previously found the $1 million award exceeded nominal damages limits under Georgia law, leaving further resolution to lower courts. The Court of Appeals has now adopted the Supreme Court's opinion and remanded remaining issues to the trial court.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Court of Appeals of Georgia has vacated its prior judgment in Walmart Stores East, LP v. Bettie Leverette and remanded the case. This action follows a Georgia Supreme Court decision that the $1 million jury award in favor of Bettie Leverette against Walmart exceeded the limits on nominal damages under Georgia law. The Supreme Court had directed the lower courts to resolve whether the verdict should ultimately be vacated, considering arguments about invited error and the unusual nature of the jury instructions and verdict form.

This ruling means the case will return to the trial court for further proceedings to determine the ultimate outcome of the jury's verdict. Legal professionals involved in similar cases concerning damages limits or jury instructions should note the implications of this decision. While the specific compliance actions are case-dependent, the underlying legal principles regarding damages and procedural fairness are now subject to further judicial review at the trial level.

What to do next

Review the Supreme Court's opinion in Walmart II for implications on damages limits.
Monitor trial court proceedings on remand for resolution of specific jury instruction and verdict form issues.
Assess potential impact on pending litigation involving similar damages awards or procedural irregularities.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 17, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Walmart Stores East, Lp v. Bettie Leverette

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Citations: None known
Docket Number: A24A0115
Disposition: Vacated & Remanded With Direction
Opinion
Authorities (2)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Disposition

Vacated & Remanded With Direction

Combined Opinion

FOURTH DIVISION
BROWN, C. J.,
DILLARD, P. J., and PADGETT, J.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be
physically received in our clerk’s office within ten
days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
https://www.gaappeals.us/rules

February 17, 2026

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
A24A0115. WALMART STORES EAST, LP v. LEVERETTE.

BROWN, Chief Judge.

In Walmart Stores E., LP v. Leverette, 371 Ga. App. 543 (901 SE2d 607) (2024),

this Court affirmed a jury verdict in favor of Bettie Leverette against Wal-mart Stores

East, LP (“Walmart”). In Walmart Stores E., LP v. Leverette, 321 Ga. 854 (917 SE2d

702) (2025) (“Walmart II”), the Supreme Court vacated our decision after

concluding that the $1 million award in this case exceeds the limits on nominal

damages under Georgia law. However, the Court explained that its decision did not

resolve whether the jury’s verdict in this case must ultimately be
vacated. For one thing, [Leverette] contends that the jury’s verdict
should not be disturbed because any error in it was invited by [Walmart].
For another, given the particular combination of jury instructions, an
unusual special verdict form, and the overall jury verdict in this case, the
appropriate remedy, if any, is not clear.

Id. at 855. The Court ultimately left these decisions “for the courts below to resolve

on remand.” Id.

We now vacate Division 1 of our earlier opinion and in place of that Division we

adopt as our own the Supreme Court’s opinion in Walmart II.1 As to the remaining

issues identified in Walmart II, we remand this case to the trial court to decide them

in the first instance.2

Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction. Dillard, P.J., and Padgett, J.,

concur.

1
“Because the Supreme Court neither addressed nor considered Division [2]
of our [earlier] opinion . . ., and that Division is not inconsistent with the Supreme
Court’s own opinion, Division [2] becomes binding upon the return of the
remittitur.” Ashley v. State, 340 Ga. App. 539, 540 (798 SE2d 235) (2017) (citation and
punctuation omitted).
2
Walmart’s motion to determine issues on remand is denied.
2