Author: Theodore J. Boutrous
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Exemplary damages
Languages : en
Pages : 56
Book Description
Successfully Challenging Punitive Damage Awards
Author: Theodore J. Boutrous
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Exemplary damages
Languages : en
Pages : 56
Book Description
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Exemplary damages
Languages : en
Pages : 56
Book Description
Procedural Due Process and Predictable Punitive Damage Awards
Author: Jill Wieber Lens
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Damages
Languages : en
Pages : 0
Book Description
“In Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, the Supreme Court's most recent opinion on punitive damage awards, the Court declared that the real problem with punitive damage awards is their "stark unpredictability." The Court abandoned all hope that common law jury instructions could produce predictable punitive damage awards. Instead, the Court suggested pegging punitive damage awards to compensatory damage awards. So far, analysis of the opinion has been minimal, likely due to the purported maritime law basis of the holding. Exxon should not be overlooked, however, as it signals a resurgence of procedural due process as a basis for challenging punitive damage awards—a type of challenge that the Court has not heard since the early 1990s. Predictability of the amount is no different than fair notice of the likely severity of an award, which procedural due process requires. If common law jury instructions cannot produce predictable punitive damage awards, they also cannot produce awards consistent with the notice procedural due process requires. The Exxon Court's pegging solution will not produce predictable awards (and ones that comply with procedural due process) because it relies on compensatory damages, which are inherently unpredictable. As an alternative, this Article suggests looking to restitution, a non-controversial punitive, civil remedy. Basing punitive damages on the defendant's gain would produce predictable awards—as procedural due process requires.”
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Damages
Languages : en
Pages : 0
Book Description
“In Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, the Supreme Court's most recent opinion on punitive damage awards, the Court declared that the real problem with punitive damage awards is their "stark unpredictability." The Court abandoned all hope that common law jury instructions could produce predictable punitive damage awards. Instead, the Court suggested pegging punitive damage awards to compensatory damage awards. So far, analysis of the opinion has been minimal, likely due to the purported maritime law basis of the holding. Exxon should not be overlooked, however, as it signals a resurgence of procedural due process as a basis for challenging punitive damage awards—a type of challenge that the Court has not heard since the early 1990s. Predictability of the amount is no different than fair notice of the likely severity of an award, which procedural due process requires. If common law jury instructions cannot produce predictable punitive damage awards, they also cannot produce awards consistent with the notice procedural due process requires. The Exxon Court's pegging solution will not produce predictable awards (and ones that comply with procedural due process) because it relies on compensatory damages, which are inherently unpredictable. As an alternative, this Article suggests looking to restitution, a non-controversial punitive, civil remedy. Basing punitive damages on the defendant's gain would produce predictable awards—as procedural due process requires.”
Proving Punitive Damages
Author: Tom Riley
Publisher: Prentice Hall
ISBN:
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 360
Book Description
Publisher: Prentice Hall
ISBN:
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 360
Book Description
Punitive Damages
Author: American Bar Association. Special Committee on Punitive Damages
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Damages
Languages : en
Pages : 116
Book Description
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Damages
Languages : en
Pages : 116
Book Description
Symposium
Constitutional Challenges to Punitive Damages After BMW V. Gore
Author: Theodore B. Olson
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Constitutional law
Languages : en
Pages : 80
Book Description
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Constitutional law
Languages : en
Pages : 80
Book Description
Punitive Damages
Author: Linda L. Schlueter
Publisher: MICHIE
ISBN:
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 712
Book Description
Publisher: MICHIE
ISBN:
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 712
Book Description
Fairness in Punitive Damages Awards Act
Author: United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 108
Book Description
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 108
Book Description
Punitive Damages, Law and Practice
Author: James D. Ghiardi
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Exemplary damages
Languages : en
Pages : 1078
Book Description
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Exemplary damages
Languages : en
Pages : 1078
Book Description
Punishing for the Injury
Author: Jill Wieber Lens
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Damages
Languages : en
Pages : 0
Book Description
The limitations on a punitive damage award depend on the conception of punitive damages. Is it a private law remedy, limited to resolving the dispute between the parties? Or is it a public law remedy, capable of addressing public harm and achieving public good? The Supreme Court has not wavered from public law ideas of punitive damages - that the damages serve the state’s interests and are similar to criminal punishments. At the same time, the Court has focused on the actual injury to the plaintiff in its holdings and prohibited punitive damages from punishing harm to nonparties, indicating that punitive damages serve only the private law purpose of resolving the parties’ dispute. This Article examines tort law’s influence on the constitutional limitations of punitive damage awards, an influence that mandates a private law conception of punitive damages. Tort law lacks the ability to punish unless a finding of liability for an underlying injury exists. Punitive damages should thus be based only on the underlying injury for which the defendant is liable. Consistent with tort law’s influence, punitive damages that punish the public harm that the defendant’s conduct created would be unconstitutional, meaning that punitive damages will be minimal if supported only by an award of nominal damages. Also consistent with tort law’s influence, punitive damage awards must be personalized to the individual dispute despite the Court’s recent concerns about unpredictability.
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Damages
Languages : en
Pages : 0
Book Description
The limitations on a punitive damage award depend on the conception of punitive damages. Is it a private law remedy, limited to resolving the dispute between the parties? Or is it a public law remedy, capable of addressing public harm and achieving public good? The Supreme Court has not wavered from public law ideas of punitive damages - that the damages serve the state’s interests and are similar to criminal punishments. At the same time, the Court has focused on the actual injury to the plaintiff in its holdings and prohibited punitive damages from punishing harm to nonparties, indicating that punitive damages serve only the private law purpose of resolving the parties’ dispute. This Article examines tort law’s influence on the constitutional limitations of punitive damage awards, an influence that mandates a private law conception of punitive damages. Tort law lacks the ability to punish unless a finding of liability for an underlying injury exists. Punitive damages should thus be based only on the underlying injury for which the defendant is liable. Consistent with tort law’s influence, punitive damages that punish the public harm that the defendant’s conduct created would be unconstitutional, meaning that punitive damages will be minimal if supported only by an award of nominal damages. Also consistent with tort law’s influence, punitive damage awards must be personalized to the individual dispute despite the Court’s recent concerns about unpredictability.