Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- United States Supreme Court (13)
- Law (2)
- AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board (525 U.S. 366 (1999)) (1)
- BMW of North America (1)
- Book review (1)
-
- Cass R. Sunstein (1)
- Church and State (1)
- City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd (1)
- Civil Rights (1)
- Civil Rights Act of 1991 (1)
- Commercial Law (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Criminal Law (1)
- Criminal Procedure (1)
- Due Process of Law (1)
- Employment Discrimination (1)
- Exaction Fees (1)
- Federalism (1)
- Food & Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (529 U.S. 120 (2000)) (1)
- Harry A. Blackmum (1)
- Inc. v. Gore 517 U.S. 559 (1996) (1)
- Kolstad v. American Dental Association (1)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (526 U.S. 137 (1999)) (1)
- Linguistics (1)
- Minimalist Theory (1)
- Mitchell v. Helms (530 U.S. 793 (2000)) (1)
- Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp. (527 U.S. 815 (1999)) (1)
- Parochial Schools (1)
- Presidential Elections (1)
- Punitive Damages (1)
- Publication
Articles 1 - 15 of 15
Full-Text Articles in Law
Constitutional Law -- Due Process Clause -- Third Circuit Holds That $50 Million Punitive Damages Award In Context Of A $48 Million Compensatory Award Is Unconstitutionally Excessive -- Inter Medical Supplies, Ltd. V. Ebi Medical Systems, Inc., 181 F.3d 446 (3d Cir. 1999)., A. Benjamin Spencer
Faculty Publications
In 1996, the Supreme Court, in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, struck down a punitive damages award on the ground that it was "grossly excessive" in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . Since BMW, many courts have faced the challenge of applying its principles to determine whether punitive damages awards surpass the constitutional limit. Last June, in Inter Medical Supplies, Ltd. v. EBI Medical Systems, Inc., the Third Circuit faced this difficulty when it considered whether a $50 million punitive damages award, granted in conjunction with a $48 million compensatory damages award, was …
Negotiated Development Denial Meets People's Court: Del Monte Dunes Brings New Wildcards To Exactions Law, Jonathan M. Davidson, Ronald H. Rosenberg, Michael C. Spata
Negotiated Development Denial Meets People's Court: Del Monte Dunes Brings New Wildcards To Exactions Law, Jonathan M. Davidson, Ronald H. Rosenberg, Michael C. Spata
Faculty Publications
The United States Supreme Court Answered "YES" to the $1.45 million over exaction question for 1999. In City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd., a unanimous court extended the scope of compensatory takings review beyond land dedication conditions into the realm of regulatory denial. Justice Kennedy's opinion vitalized the "legitimate state interests" test from Agins v. City of Tiburon to sustain an inverse condemnation conclusion and damage award to the frustrated developer. A majority of the court also concurred that the trial court may delegate this takings conclusion to the jury under federal civil rights law. The …
Section 10: Justice Blackmun, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 10: Justice Blackmun, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 1: Mitchell V. Helms, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 1: Mitchell V. Helms, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 3: Business And Commerce, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 3: Business And Commerce, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 7: Criminal Law And Procedure, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 7: Criminal Law And Procedure, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 8: Upcoming Issues Before The Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 8: Upcoming Issues Before The Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 4: Federalism, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 4: Federalism, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 11: Toni House, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 11: Toni House, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 2: The Direction Of The Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 2: The Direction Of The Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 9: The Court And The 2000 Election, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 9: The Court And The 2000 Election, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 5: First Amendment, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 5: First Amendment, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 6: Civil Rights, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 6: Civil Rights, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
The Democracy-Forcing Constitution, Neal Devins
The Democracy-Forcing Constitution, Neal Devins
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Civil Rights Act Of 1991 -- Employer Liability For Punitive Damages In Title Vii Claims, Angela M. Banks
Civil Rights Act Of 1991 -- Employer Liability For Punitive Damages In Title Vii Claims, Angela M. Banks
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.