Law Commons^™

Market Price Damages Under Ucc Article 2: Some Suggestions For The Next Revision, Henry Mather

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

Forty (Plus) Years After The Revolution: Observations On The Implied Warranty Of Habitability, Donald E. Campbell

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Raised Eyebrow Test Produces Further Head-Scratching: Punitive Damages In Ondrisek V. Hoffman, The, Valerie Shands

Missouri Law Review

Ondrisek reveals that although the Eighth Circuit uses the same test as the Supreme Court, it certainly applies it differently. When comparing Ondrisek and other Eighth Circuit cases, one sees a subtle pattern that diverges from the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence. However, these differences are not yet distinct enough for the Supreme Court to have granted certiorari to resolve the inconsistencies.

Infant Pain And Suffering: The Valuation Dilemma, Peter N. Kalionzes

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Losing The Struggle To Define The Proper Balance Between The Law Of Defamation And The First Amendment - Gertz V. Robert Welch, Inc.: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, Douglas B. Large, Kristopher Kallman

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

In California Excess Liability Cases, Does “Bad Faith” In Law Equal “Strict Liability” In Practice?, Roger D. Marlow, Ronald E. Magnuson

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Punitive Damages: An Exception To The Right Of Privacy? Coy V. Superior Court, Richard S. Fields

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Perspectives In Consumer Advocacy: Antitrust Parens Patriae Suits Pursuant To The Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act- A Solution For Wrongs Without Redress, Andrew B. Jones

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Errata (Correction Notice), Holly Phillips

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

The Damage Is Done: Ordering A New Trial Based Only On Damages, Katherine Kubale, Richard Bales

Pepperdine Law Review

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) allows trial courts to grant new trials to any or all of the parties, on any or all of the issues, including damages. However, the federal circuits are split on how to handle new trials based solely on damages. One croup of circuits grants partial new trials on damages alone only if the erroneous damage amount did not in any way affect the determination of any other issue. Under this standard, a new trial on damages is allowed when the second jury can evaluate the first damage award without also re-examining other issues, such …

Administrative Decision-Making By Judges In The United States' Environmental Protection Agency Administrator's Civil Penalty Assessment Process: Whatever Happened To The Law?, Richard R. Wagner

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

A Fresh Look At An Old Tort: Litigating Slander Of Title In Mineral Disputes, J. Zak Ritchie

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Thresholds Of Actionable Mental Harm In Negligence: A Policy-Based Appraisal, Louise Bélanger-Hardy

Dalhousie Law Journal

Common law courts, in Canada and elsewhere, currently insist on proof of a recognizable psychiatric illness (RPI) before granting damages to plaintiffs seeking compensation for stand-alone mental harm caused by negligent acts. This article argues that the time has come to revisit this well-entrenched principle. The inquiry focuses specifically on the policy concerns underlying the current rule. As a first step, policy considerations for and against limiting the extent of actionable mental harm are canvassed and assessed. The author concludes that some of the perceived advantages of the RPI rule, in particular predictability,are debatable and that insistence on the traditional …

Constitutionality Of Caps: Upholding Missouri's Right To Jury Trial And The Non-Economic Damages Debate, The, Rachel Lawrence

Missouri Law Review

This Note argues that the Watts decision appropriately invalidated the statutory limits on economic damages, finding non-economic caps on damages unconstitutional. Part II of this Note analyzes the facts and holding of Watts. Part III examines previous constitutional challenges to Missouri Revised Statutes chapter 538 and how the court interpreted constitutional language to reach its decision. Next, Part IV explains the court’s rationale in Watts. Last, Part V explains why the court was correct in declaring noneconomic damage caps unconstitutional and explores the policy issues behind statutory limitations on damages.

Avoiding Double Recovery: Assessing Liquidated Damages In Private Wage And Hour Actions Under The Fair Labor Standards Act And The New York Labor Law, Alexander J. Callen

Fordham Law Review

Wage and hour cases are common in New York, yet courts calculate damages inconsistently when plaintiffs pursue their unpaid wages under both federal and state law. Overlapping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law both authorize private actions for the recovery of certain unpaid wages, and each also provides an additional 100 percent of the unpaid wages as liquidated damages unless the employer establishes a good-faith defense. Given these similarities, New York wage and hour cases regularly flirt with the double recovery doctrine, which prevents plaintiffs from receiving duplicative awards.

Historically, courts in the …

Safeway Stores, Inc. V. Nest-Kart: The Culmination Of Li V. Yellow Cab Co., David R. Haglund

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Punitive Damages In Product Liability Cases , Mark P. Robinson Jr., Gerald H.B. Kane Jr.

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Seller's Warranty Liability Under The Uniform Commercial Code: Should Buyer's Merchant Status Affect His Right Of Recovery?, Olin W. Jones

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

California Expands Tort Liability Under The Novel Market Share Theory: Sindell V. Abbott Laboratories, N. Denise Taylor

Pepperdine Law Review

The California Supreme Court, in the novel and unprecedented case of Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, eliminated the plaintiffs burden of identification of a negligent party, and thus the causation requirement, in a multiple party tort action. In the course of this decision, the court adopted the "market share" theory of liability which dictated in Sindell that nonidentifiable defendant-manufacturers of the generic drug DES would be liable for the damages in proportion to their share of business in the market. The author thoroughly examines various theories of recovery, such as "alternative liability," "concert of action" and "enterprise liability," which the court …

Molien V. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals: Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress, Michael P. Messina

Pepperdine Law Review

In Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, the California Supreme Court recognized that the interest in freedom from negligent infliction of mental distress is a protectable interest, and that an accompanying physical injury need not exist in order to recover damages. The author presents a discussion of the history and policies behind the right to recover from negligently inflicted emotional distress. The author also discusses and analyzes the court's opinion in Molien and agrees with the court that the fears of opening the floodgate of litigation which before Molien precluded recovery, was arbitrary. Finally, the author concludes that the holding is …

Aviation Litigation: Federal Preemption And The Creation Of A Federal Remedy As A Means To Extinguish The Current Confusion In The Courts, Deborah J. Olsen

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fixing The Vaccine Act's Structural Moral Hazard, Brandon L. Boxler

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

The article presents information on the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. It discusses the U.S. Federal circuit case Hazlehurst v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., in which lawsuit against the defendant was filed by the plaintiff who sought claims against the liability of product to recover damages for alleged injuries which his son had received from vaccines. It also provides information on the structural moral hazard of the program which devolves it into a litigious adjudicatory process.

Liability Cure-All For Insidious Disease Claims, Susan Frankewich

Pepperdine Law Review

Recent decisions handed down in various circuits have created virtual chaos in predicting the liability and damage amounts of insidious disease claims. At least three substantially divergent theories have been adopted to impute liability to the manufacturers of the disease catalysts. Additionally, a new trust fund concept has been used on a limited basis to reconcile differences in court decisions. The trust fund approach is relatively flexible and simple to apply in apportioning damages for insidious disease claims. The author examines and analyzes these three liability theories. In conclusion, the adoption of the trust fund concept is recommended.

The Litigation Privilege In Texas., Sam Johnson

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

Certain Texas cases have arisen where one party in litigation sues the attorney representing an opposing party. In response to such cases, Texas courts promulgated a judicial doctrine generally referred to as the litigation privilege or qualified immunity in order to protect litigants’ right to zealous representation from their attorney. The general rule is that one party to a lawsuit cannot sue the other party’s attorney. However, exceptions to this doctrine exist. This article explores the contours of the litigation privilege in Texas by analyzing the primary Texas cases where one party’s claim against the opposing party’s attorney was dismissed …

Two Wrongs Do Not Make A Right: Reconsidering The Application Of Comparative Fault To Punitive Damage Awards , Victor E. Schwartz, Christopher E. Appel

Missouri Law Review

The purpose of this Article is to reexamine and appropriately analyze the application of comparative fault to punitive damages. The Article challenges the conventional wisdom that these spheres of law should remain separate. Part II begins with an overview of the development of the law of comparative fault with punitive damages. It discusses the limited attention that has been paid to potential overlap in these areas of law and draws parallels with other developments in the law of comparative fault supporting more accurate and just awards of damages. Part III analyzes the public policy arguments for and against applying comparative …

Penalty Clauses As Remedies: Exploring Comparative Approaches To Enforceability, Jack Graves

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Solidifying Arkansas's Liquidated Damage Law After S.O.G.-San-Ore-Gardner V. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.: It's Not All Water Under The Bridge, David C. Jung

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

The construction of the Benzal Bridge over the White River in rural Arkansas brought about years of litigation between Missouri Pacific Railroad Company and contractor San Ore-Gardner, the crux of which was whether the liquidated damages provision in the parties' contract was enforceable. The liquidated damages provision at issue provided that San Ore-Gardner would be liable to Missouri Pacific Railroad Company for damages in the amount of $600 per day if performance of the contract was not completed within the specified time period. Although Missouri Pacific Railroad Company did contribute to the over two year delay in completion of the …