Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
Punitive Damages Revisited: A Statistical Analysis Of How Federal Circuit Courts Decide The Constitutionality Of Such Awards, Hironari Momioka
Punitive Damages Revisited: A Statistical Analysis Of How Federal Circuit Courts Decide The Constitutionality Of Such Awards, Hironari Momioka
Cleveland State Law Review
Using data from punitive damages decisions of U.S. federal circuit courts from 2004 to 2012, this paper attempts to establish empirically the following: (1) there is no apparent statistical difference between the levels of jury and judge awards; (2) U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as Philip Morris (2007) or Exxon (2008) do not actually or substantially affect the level of punitive damage awards; (3) with regard to the cases involving remittitur, or reduction of awards, the Exxon decision did not radically affect the decreasing ratio of punitive to compensatory damage awards; (4) as the levels of compensatory awards go up, …
The Roots Of Punitive Damages At Common Law: A Longer History, Jason Taliadoros
The Roots Of Punitive Damages At Common Law: A Longer History, Jason Taliadoros
Cleveland State Law Review
This Article aims to revisit the historical development of the doctrine of exemplary or punitive damages. Punitive damages are anomalous in that they lie in both tort and crime, a matter that has led to much criticism by modern commentators. Yet, a definitive history of punitive damages does not exist to explain this anomaly. The main contribution of this Article, then, is to begin such a history by way of a meta-narrative. It identifies and links the historically significant moments that led to punitive damages, beginning with the background period of classical Roman law, its renewed reception in Western Europe …
Punishment: The Civil Perspective Of Punitive Damages, Bailey Kuklin
Punishment: The Civil Perspective Of Punitive Damages, Bailey Kuklin
Cleveland State Law Review
Punitive, or exemplary damages, have been recognized in the Anglo-American common law systems for two centuries. This Article explores the consequences of treating punitive damages as a private means of punishment. Light is shed on the controversies surrounding, first, the attempt to adopt a standard of punishment, private or public, and second, to apply such a standard. The concentration on punitive damages for this exploratory undertaking, instead of criminal sanctions, avoids the need to account for additional imputed public penal purposes, such as rehabilitation and isolation. As a preliminary matter, the emphasis of this Article should be made clear. The …
Snepp V. United States, Frederick W. Whatley
Snepp V. United States, Frederick W. Whatley
Cleveland State Law Review
On February 19, 1980. the Supreme Court handed downs its decision in the case of Snepp v. United States. The Court based its decision on the writs of certiorari filed by Snepp and the government. There were no briefs or oral arguments on the merits of the case. The above quotes serve as more than a mere backdrop to the Snepp case. Whether the decision was rendered out of a concern that the actions of persons such as Mr. Agee may lead to the deaths of Central Intelligence Agency (hereinafter sometimes referred to as CIA) operatives, such as Mr. Welch's …
Punitive Damages In Wrongful Death, Gary N. Holthus
Punitive Damages In Wrongful Death, Gary N. Holthus
Cleveland State Law Review
Punitive damages, also known as exemplary damages, smart money, or vindictive damages, are damages awarded to a plaintiff on a finding of malicious, fraudulent, willful, wanton, or reckless conduct by a defendant, indifferent to the rights and safety of others. The purpose of exemplary damages is to protect the public from reckless, willful acts and to punish the wrongdoer
Damages For Injury To Feelings In Malicious Prosecution And Abuse Of Process, A. M. Witte
Damages For Injury To Feelings In Malicious Prosecution And Abuse Of Process, A. M. Witte
Cleveland State Law Review
The burden of this paper is the extent to which a plaintiff in a malicious prosecution action will be permitted to recover damages for the injury he has suffered to his feelings. Simply stated, there is no serious legal question presented by this broad topic. In a malicious prosecution action based on criminal proceedings the plaintiff may recover damages for his mental suffering (and for the harm to his reputation) and the great majority of jurisdictions permit these damages to be recovered without special pleading or proof-i.e., these elements are considered to be general damages.
Payment Of Punitive Damages By Insurance Companies, Martin G. Lentz
Payment Of Punitive Damages By Insurance Companies, Martin G. Lentz
Cleveland State Law Review
The logic and validity of the public policy argument that to require insurance companies to pay punitive damages would place a burden upon the innocent insurance carrier, and ultimately the public itself, is weak and indefensible. The concern for not wanting to punish the insurance carrier, an innocent party, is not logical since any insurance company is an innocent party. The involvement is based on the contractual relationship of indemnification. If an insurance company does not wish to indemnify for punitive damages, then it should specifically exclude such coverage in the policy. In the absence of such a specific exclusion, …