Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Civil Procedure
Who Determines What Is Egregious? Judge Or Jury: Enhanced Damages After Halo V. Pulse, Brandon M. Reed
Who Determines What Is Egregious? Judge Or Jury: Enhanced Damages After Halo V. Pulse, Brandon M. Reed
Georgia State University Law Review
Enhanced damages in patent law are a type of punitive damage that can be awarded in the case of “egregious misconduct” during the course of patent infringement. Authorization for enhanced damages comes from 35 U.S.C. § 284, which allows the district court to increase total damages up to three times the amount of actual damages found by the jury. It is well understood that, since enhanced damages are punitive in nature, enhancement should only be considered for cases of “wanton” or “deliberate” infringement. However, determining what constitutes this “egregious” misconduct has vastly transformed over time to include a negligence standard, …
Misapplication Of The Attorney Malpractice Paradigm To Litigation Services: "Suit Within A Suit" Shortcomings Compel Witness Immunity For Experts, Adam J. Myers Iii
Misapplication Of The Attorney Malpractice Paradigm To Litigation Services: "Suit Within A Suit" Shortcomings Compel Witness Immunity For Experts, Adam J. Myers Iii
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Indulgence Of Reasonable Presumptions: Federal Court Contractual Civil Jury Trial Waivers, Joel Andersen
The Indulgence Of Reasonable Presumptions: Federal Court Contractual Civil Jury Trial Waivers, Joel Andersen
Michigan Law Review
Large institutions such as banks, franchisers, international companies, and lessors distrust juries' ability to properly resolve disputes and award reasonable damages. As a result, these and other actors have attempted to limit juries' potential influence on the contracts to which they are parties. They have done so through contractual jury trial waiver clauses in these agreements. The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the jury trial right. Whether the right is determined to exist in an individual instance is a matter of federal common law, which merely preserves the jury trial right as it existed when the Amendment was adopted …
Manageability Of Notice And Damage Calculation In Consumer Class Actions, Michigan Law Review
Manageability Of Notice And Damage Calculation In Consumer Class Actions, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
This Comment will examine the likelihood that Rule 23, as it has been interpreted since its amendment, will provide a mechanism through which consumers may successfully resolve their grievances. The focus will be on the manageability problems of providing the requisite notice and of devising a method of calculation and distribution of damages.
Admission Of Liability, Richard H. Burgess
Admission Of Liability, Richard H. Burgess
Cleveland State Law Review
There is a great amount of resistance to the admission of liability when the slightest defense is available. Many defendants' attorneys would prefer to take the long chance of hoping for an unexpected verdict rather than admit fault and leave only the issue of damages to the jury. Surprisingly, there have actually been cases in which liability was admitted and the jury returned a verdict of no cause of action. Generally speaking, though, an admission of liability will tend to keep the damage award reasonable, but it will take away the slight possibility of an unexpected defendant's verdict.
Federal Courts - Rules Of Federal Procedure - Production Of Designated Documents And Things Under Rule 34, William C. Wetherbee Jr.
Federal Courts - Rules Of Federal Procedure - Production Of Designated Documents And Things Under Rule 34, William C. Wetherbee Jr.
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff sued for damages and loss of profits caused by the unlawful acts of the defendant beginning in January, 1937. Under rule 34 of the new federal rules the defendant moved that the court order the plaintiff to produce its books showing the company's commercial results for the period prior to January 1, 1936; its duplicate federal income tax returns for the years 1934 to 1938; and all copies of statements furnished to any bank or credit company over a period of some five years. Held, motion granted in regard to books of account and duplicate income tax returns …
Practice And Procedure - General Verdict On Several Counts - Is New Trial Necessary When One Of Two Counts Is Unsupported By Evidence?, Edmund R. Blaske
Practice And Procedure - General Verdict On Several Counts - Is New Trial Necessary When One Of Two Counts Is Unsupported By Evidence?, Edmund R. Blaske
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff sued defendant to recover damages arising from personal injuries claimed to have been suffered by him while in the employ of defendant, who was not under the workmen's compensation statute. In the first count of his declaration plaintiff claimed that defendant did not furnish him a safe place in which to work, and in the second count that defendant set him at work on dangerous materials. The jury returned a verdict of "guilty on both counts" and assessed "total damages" at $998.71. The trial court, on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, ruled that as a matter of …