claim as “all or nothing.” Id. at 399-400. This ruling by this district court will be reviewed for an abuse of discretion—“[w]here a new trial motion asserts that the jury award is not supported by the evidence, the verdict must stand unless it is clearly, decidedly, or overwhelmingly against the weight of evidence.” Anaeme v. Diagnostek, Inc., 164 F.3d 1275, 1284 (10th Cir.1999) (citations omitted). The question of whether the jury award in this case was clearly against the weight of the evidence must be considered under Kansas law. As the Supreme Court has explained, the law applied in evaluating the legality of the amount of a jury verdict is substantive rather than procedural. Gasperini v. Center for the Humanities, 518 U.S. 415, 425, 428-31, 116 S.Ct. 2211, 135 L.Ed.2d 659 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, under the principles laid out in
holding that superior court erred in reversing trial courts order granting new trial and remanding for a new trial limited to apportionment of damages holding that an order granting a new trial in a civil action is appealable holding that the standard for granting a new trial on the basis that a jurys award of damages is improper influences outcomes by tightening the range of tolerable awards holding that an award of restitution is only for the loss caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction holding that to offset a jurys damage award a separate thirdparty insurance award must cover the same loss which served as the basis for the jury award