Torts Commons^™

The Defamation Injunction Meets The Prior Restraint Doctrine, Doug Rendleman

San Diego Law Review

This article maintains that, under defined circumstances, a judge should be able to grant an injunction that forbids the defendant’s proved defamation. It analyzes the common law of defamation, the constitutional prior restraint doctrine, the constitutional protection for defamation that stems from New York Times v. Sullivan, and injunctions and their enforcement.

In Near v. Minnesota, the Supreme Court expanded protection for expression by adding an injunction to executive licensing as a prior restraint. Although the Near court circumscribed the injunction as a prior restraint, it approved criminal sanctions and damages judgment for defamation. An injunction that forbids the defendant’s …

It Is Time For Washington State To Take A Stand Against Holmes's Bad Man: The Value Of Punitive Damages In Deterring Big Business And International Tortfeasors, Jackson Pahlke

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In Washington State, tortfeasors get a break when they commit intentional torts. Instead of receiving more punishment for their planned bad act, intentional tortfeasors are punished as if they committed a mere accident. The trend does not stop in Washington State—nationwide, punitive damage legislation inadequately deters intentional wrongdoers through caps and outright bans on punitive damages. Despite Washington State’s one hundred and twenty-five year ban on punitive damages, it is in a unique and powerful position to change the way courts across the country deal with intentional tortfeasors. Since Washington has never had a comprehensive punitive damages framework, and has …

Exxon Shipping Co. V. Baker: Why The Supreme Court Missed The Boat On Punitive Damages, Maria C. Klutinoty

Akron Law Review

This Note will touch upon the numerous constitutional challenges the doctrine of punitive damages has faced, and will discuss noteworthy Supreme Court cases preceding Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker at length, including BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 5 as well as State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell. 6 This Note argues against the imposition of a strict one-to-one maximum ratio of punitiveto-compensatory damages. In light of the varying application of Exxon outside of the maritime context, such an imposition defeats the purpose of punitive damages by diluting their potential for deterrence, and it needlessly complicates the …

Constitutional Restraints On The Doctrine Of Punitive Damages, Theodore B. Olson, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr.

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Recalibrating The Scales Of Justice Through National Punitive Damage Reform, Kimberly A. Pace

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Martin V. Security Services, Inc., 314 So.2d 765 (Fla. 1975), Nancy Ann Daniels

Florida State University Law Review

Torts- WRONGFUL DEATH- FLORIDA'S WRONGFUL DEATH ACT IS CONSTITUTIONAL AND PERMITS PUNITIVE DAMAGES.