Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Legal Remedies

University of Michigan Law School

1983

Damages

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Using The Federal Tort Claims Act To Remedy Property Damage Following Customs Service Seizures, Richard F. Neidhardt Oct 1983

Using The Federal Tort Claims Act To Remedy Property Damage Following Customs Service Seizures, Richard F. Neidhardt

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Part I of this Note explains the general application of the FTCA to tort claims asserted against the federal government. Part II demonstrates the inadequacy of current judicial arguments regarding the adjudication of detention-related property damage claims under section 2680(c). Part III presents the. policy considerations behind the FTCA and concludes that those considerations allow courts to interpret the Act to cover detention-related property damage claims.


Class Actions For Punitive Damages, Michigan Law Review Aug 1983

Class Actions For Punitive Damages, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that a Rule 23 class action offers the best way to manage multiple actions for punitive damages. It begins by examining the policy underlying punitive damages and the plaintiffs interest in recovering them. It then explains why a limited fund is created when courts deny punitive damage recovery as a matter of law or when punitive claims exceed defendant's assets. The Note contends that a Rule 23(b)(l)(B) class action provides the best means to manage this limited fund and reviews the circumstances in which a district court may properly certify a class action for punitive damages. It …


Controlling Jury Damage Awards In Private Antitrust Suits, Michigan Law Review Jan 1983

Controlling Jury Damage Awards In Private Antitrust Suits, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note takes the position that the courts should better control jury manipulation in private antitrust actions. Part One suggests that manipulation is likely in such actions, and argues that this manipulation off ends the legislative judgment reflected in the trebling provision without leading to more equitable results. Part Two presents two complementary proposals to control jury manipulation of treble damage awards. These proposals aim to induce the jury to return accurate awards based on the economic loss actually suffered by the plaintiff.