Federal judges in South Carolina try trifurcation; juries are asked to consider insurance coverage in a trial stage after setting punitives
Article Abstract:
Trifurcation and possibly quadrifurcation of personal-injury cases has been started by the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Mattison v. Dallas Carrier Corp. so that the jury can consider insurance coverage in cases where the matter of punitive damages is submitted to a jury. The matter of the jury's consideration of insurance coverage arises because the Haslip ruling, and this is a post-Haslip case, enunciated seven factors for deciding whether a state's punitive damages jurisprudence is constitutional, one of which is the defendant's financial position. Mattison dealt with one Haslip factor.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Joint defense arrangements raise antitrust issues; joint defendants should avoid conduct that restricts their freedom to settle individually
Article Abstract:
The popularity of joint defense arrangements in patent infringement suits is not surprising in view of such suits' high cost, but such arrangements have potential antitrust implications. The patentee can charge that such arrangements are group boycotts in violation of antitrust laws, and to defend against such charges, joint defense participants should avoid any conduct or agreements restricting their freedom to negotiate the settlement individually. There is no antitrust violation if a defendant has that freedom. Practical guidelines offered by the case law are listed.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Deep-pocket defendants hail Reves case
Article Abstract:
The US Supreme Court held in Reves v Ernst & Young that an outside accounting firm is not liable for treble damages in a civil RICO action. The court stated that the firm does not 'participate in' or 'direct' the enterprise's affairs in the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) just by performing accounting functions for the client. The judges stated, however, that the 'narrow operation or management test' did not apply to Section 1962(a) or (b) and that an outsider might have RICO liability under either one of these sections.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1993
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: An axiology for national health insurance. Mistakes and fraud in medical research. The moral standing of animals in medical research
- Abstracts: Insuring punitive damages: many courts allow insurance coverage if punitives can be awarded for reckless conduct
- Abstracts: Congress approves securities law reforms in an effort to streamline regulation, reduce regulatory burdens and promote capital formation for U.S. businesses
- Abstracts: Evidence - expert testimony - Sixth Circuit holds that expert testimony is not needed to establish a standard of care in surrogacy cases
- Abstracts: IRS eases rules applicable to NRAs in final GST tax regs. Prop. regs. provide guidance on GST tax planning for NRAs