This term, the Supreme Court held that punitive damages can be excessive. Now it's up to the lower courts to determine just how much is permissible
Article Abstract:
The US Supreme Court issued two important punitive damages rulings in its 1995-96 term, Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc. and BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore. The Gore holding is likely to have the most far-reaching effect. The issue was the company's policy of not disclosing repairs on new cars if they cost less than 3% of the retail price. Since the plaintiff convinced the jury to punish the defendant on the basis of the number of cars sold across the country, the case asked whether a state had the power to punish a defendant for conduct which occurred in other states. After limiting extraterritorial punishment, the court gave a tripartite test for deciding whether the punitive damages assessed were excessive.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1996
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Let judges set punitive damages
Article Abstract:
Widespread concern over the unpredictable and often huge size of punitive awards made by juries suggests that judges should consider determining such awards themselves. Past court decisions do not establish whether juries are constitutionally required to determine award amounts, but several Supreme Court decisions suggest it is permissible for trial judges merely to ask for a determination of whether a punitive award is justified. Calculations of such awards take many factors into account, and are of the sort judges make.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1996
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Should the non-profits pay punitive damages?
Article Abstract:
Non-profit organizations should not be exempt from paying punitive damages. A number of arguments against this idea have been advanced. One has to do with the idea that a part of punitive damages should be given to the state to benefit society as a whole and that nonprofit organizations benefit society so they should not have to pay this type of damage. Churches who are asked to pay punitive damages argue that this violates the First Amendment separation of church and state.
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: Israeli Supreme Court begins to Americanize law; it has recently cited the U.S. high court in speech, religion, sexual discrimination cases
- Abstracts: Senators cannot be choosers. The court must look like us all
- Abstracts: Evidence - expert testimony - Sixth Circuit holds that expert testimony is not needed to establish a standard of care in surrogacy cases
- Abstracts: Lawyers can revive their profession's image by rededicating themselves to their basic mission. Jurors prefer lawyers who are well-prepared - and not arrogant
- Abstracts: Alabama: tort capital or whipping boy? At the center of the debate is winning plaintiffs' lawyer Jere Beasley