Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Deterrence, David Crump
Liability Insurance And Punitive Damages: Does Texas Public Policy Detest This Union Comment., Anthony H. Castillo
Liability Insurance And Punitive Damages: Does Texas Public Policy Detest This Union Comment., Anthony H. Castillo
St. Mary's Law Journal
There is a nationwide debate on whether punitive damages should be insurable. Insuring punitive damages causes courts concern regarding whether a wrongdoer escapes punishment by having the insurer pay for damages attributable to the wrongdoer’s egregious conduct. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit noted Texas’ public policy does not justify interference with private insurance contracts. The Court determined Texas allows liability insurance contracts to cover punitive damages and declared the inquiry ended. But, in the years since this determination, many Texas appellate courts have contracted the Fifth Circuit’s holding. The shifting discussion among Texas appellate courts …
Punitive Damages In Texas: Examining The Need For A Split-Recovery Statute., Meredith Matheson Thoms
Punitive Damages In Texas: Examining The Need For A Split-Recovery Statute., Meredith Matheson Thoms
St. Mary's Law Journal
As a result of the increasing number and amounts of punitive damage awards, a call for reform is much warranted. Reformers and legislators continue to seek out measures to effectively limit excessive punitive damage awards and deter unnecessary and frivolous litigation. But they must consider not only the effects of the statutes but also the purposes they will serve. Split-recovery statutes can become valuable reform tool which will continue to serve the goals of punishment and retribution attached to punitive damages as well as deterrence. Split-recovery statutes arguably enlarge government, but they also serve a valuable purpose in furthering the …
Creative Sanctions For Discovery Abuse In Texas., Travis C. Headley
Creative Sanctions For Discovery Abuse In Texas., Travis C. Headley
St. Mary's Law Journal
Creative sanctions are necessary to deter litigants from abusing the discovery process. Under both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, creative sanctions are allowed and within a judge’s discretion. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 215 provide judges a non-exhaustive list of available sanctions to deter abusive discovery practices. Nonetheless, discovery abuse has continued to escalate, and limited precedence exists in the field despite the increased use of sanctions. An unprecedented creative sanction was imposed by Judge Brotman of the District Court for the Virgin Islands. On …
Limiting Punitive Damages: A Placebo For America's Ailing Competitiveness., Jimmie O. Clements Jr.
Limiting Punitive Damages: A Placebo For America's Ailing Competitiveness., Jimmie O. Clements Jr.
St. Mary's Law Journal
This Comment will discuss Vice President Dan Quayle’s proposed legislation by reviewing the history of punitive damages and providing an overview of current state legislation. Thereafter, this Comment debunks the theory of an unruly punitive damage system and analyzes the impact of a punitive damages cap on competitiveness, quality, safety and the doctrine’s underlying goals. On August 13, 1991, Vice President Quayle, as head of the President’s Council on Competitiveness (the Council), addressed the American Bar Association’s annual meeting. He announced a fifty-point proposal designed to improve the civil justice system. Vice President Quayle proposed, inter alia, a cap on …
Interference With Prospective Civil Litigation By Spollation Of Evidence: Should Texas Adopt A New Tort., Philip A. Lionberger
Interference With Prospective Civil Litigation By Spollation Of Evidence: Should Texas Adopt A New Tort., Philip A. Lionberger
St. Mary's Law Journal
Texas courts should adopt a tort for spoliation of evidence. Spoliation of evidence is the tampering with, interference with, loss of, or destruction of evidence. Spoliation of evidence is a serious legal problem because it increases a litigant’s difficulty in proving a cause of action or a defense. Evidence destruction may also increase litigation costs and cause the trial court to make factfinding errors. Texas courts should adopt the tort of spoliation of evidence because it compensates injured litigants and deters future acts of spoliation. Another reason for adopting the tort for spoliation of evidence is the inadequacy of alternative …