Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Law
Ubi Jus, Ibi Remedium: The Fundamental Right To A Remedy Under Due Process, Tracy A. Thomas
Ubi Jus, Ibi Remedium: The Fundamental Right To A Remedy Under Due Process, Tracy A. Thomas
San Diego Law Review
This essay is part of the 2003 Remedies Forum symposium comprised of international remedies scholars addressing the topic of equitable relief in the fifty years since Brown v. Board of Education. It may be true as other scholars have argued that since the time of Brown, institutional defendants have won at the expense of plaintiffs. Defendants have learned that delay and defiance work. The U.S. Supreme Court has adopted a standard for ordering equitable relief that significantly defers to defendant wrongdoers at the plaintiffs' expense. Epithets of activist courts and judicial legislation have colored the existing scholarship and portrayed remedial …
Supreme Court 2002 Term - The Property Cases: Iolta, Qui Tam Actions, And Punitive Damages (Symposium: The Fifteenth Annual Supreme Court Review), Leon D. Lazer
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
The Blockbuster Punitive Damages Awards, W. Kip Viscusi
The Blockbuster Punitive Damages Awards, W. Kip Viscusi
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
This paper provides an analysis of 64 punitive damages awards of at least $100 million. Based on an inventory of these cases, there is evidence that these blockbuster awards are highly concentrated geographically, as two states account for 27 of the 64 awards. The awards also have been rising substantially over time, with the majority of these blockbuster awards taking place since 1999. An assessment of the current status of the blockbuster punitive damages awards indicates that most of these awards have been appealed, but the reversal of these punitive damages awards is the exception rather than the rule. Many …
Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation Colloquium, Erwin Chemerinsky, Martin A. Schwartz
Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation Colloquium, Erwin Chemerinsky, Martin A. Schwartz
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. V. Campbell: Refining Bmw Of North America, Inc. V. Gore And Further Restricting Punitive Damages, Bridget E. Leonard
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. V. Campbell: Refining Bmw Of North America, Inc. V. Gore And Further Restricting Punitive Damages, Bridget E. Leonard
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Foggy Road For Evaluating Punitive Damages: Lifting The Haze From The Bmw/State Farm Guideposts, Steven L. Chanenson, John Y. Gotanda
The Foggy Road For Evaluating Punitive Damages: Lifting The Haze From The Bmw/State Farm Guideposts, Steven L. Chanenson, John Y. Gotanda
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
In this Article, Professors Chanenson and Gotanda propose that courts treat comparable maximum criminal or civil legislative fines as a presumptive due process limit on punitive damage awards. The Article reviews the manner in which courts have implemented the three-guidepost framework for constitutional review of punitive awards laid out by the Supreme Court in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore and in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell. Finding that courts have struggled to articulate a coherent rationale and methodology for review of such awards, the authors propose a greater reliance on the third guidepost of …
The Impact Of Recent U.S. Supreme Court Punitive Damages Jurisprudence On Oklahoma's Punitive Damages Statute And Jury Instructions, Andrew C. Jayne
The Impact Of Recent U.S. Supreme Court Punitive Damages Jurisprudence On Oklahoma's Punitive Damages Statute And Jury Instructions, Andrew C. Jayne
Oklahoma Law Review
No abstract provided.
Not So Peaceful Coexistence: Inherent Tensions In Addressing Tort Law Reform, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Not So Peaceful Coexistence: Inherent Tensions In Addressing Tort Law Reform, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Scholarly Works
As Professor Michael Green's comments trenchantly remind us, all of this has a familiar ring: insurers and tort defendants claim unfairly escalating liability, plaintiffs' lawyers and consumer groups counterattack, and (for the most part), insurers and defendants obtain some of the relief they seek. The tort reform victories are not so overwhelming as to completely unravel the historical rights of victims or the power of courts generally, but some constriction of rights inevitably occurs. During periods of quiescence, plaintiffs and consumers take back some lost territory through common law victories expanding claimant rights, or through specific legislation. Statutes that permitted …
Securities Arbitration Awards Of Punitive Damages: Protective Or Expansive Steps For Review - Sawtelle V. Waddell & (And) Reed, Inc., Andrew Kopp
Journal of Dispute Resolution
An award of punitive damages is often the most significant and detrimental part of an award arising from a judicial or arbitral proceeding. In 1995, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split upholding an arbitral panel's authority to award punitive damages under a securities arbitration agreement. This decision was monumental in establishing arbitral power. However, it left several questions unanswered. For example, which, if any, standards should be applied to such awards? This casenote addresses the reviewability of punitive damages awards arising out of a securities arbitration hearing.
Developments In International Commercial Dispute Resolution In 2003, William W. Park
Developments In International Commercial Dispute Resolution In 2003, William W. Park
Faculty Scholarship
The past year was another active one for international commercial disputes, with significant although not revolutionary developments in U.S. arbitration law, and considerable growth in investor-State disputes under investment treaties.
Punitive Damages: How Judges And Juries Perform, Joni Hersch, W. Kip Viscusi
Punitive Damages: How Judges And Juries Perform, Joni Hersch, W. Kip Viscusi
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
This paper presents the first empirical anatysis that demonstrates that juries differ from judges in awarding punitive damages. Our review of punitive damages awards of $100 million or more identified 63 such awards, of which juries made 95 percent. These jury awards are highly unpredictable and are not significantly correlated with compensatory damages. Using data on jury and bench verdicts from the Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, 1996, we find that juries are significantly more likely to award punitive damages than are judges and award higher levels of punitive damages. Jury awards are also less strongly related to compensatory …