Introduction. II. Recent Supreme Court Jurisprudence On . III. Disaggregating The Jurisprudence Of . A. Causes of Action. B. Relationships. C. Goals. D. Damages. E. Scope. F. Nature of Conduct. G. Type of Class Action. IV. Possible Reaggregation Scenarios For A Punitive Damages Class Action. V. Propensity for a Global View of Similarly Situated Cases. VI. Economic Rationale For "Punitive Damages". VII. Assessing Societal Harm. VIII. Modeling Methodology. IX. Estimation Methodologies In Bankruptcy. X. Allocation Of Resources. XI. Distribution Of Resources. XII. Conclusion.
Introduction. I. History. A. Civil Law. B. Common Law. C. Louisiana Law. II. Louisiana's Punitive Damages Articles. A. Louisiana Civil Code Article 2315.4: Intoxicated Drivers. 1. The Purpose of Article 2315.4. 2. Burden of Proof. a. Intoxication. b. Cause in Fact. c. Wanton and Reckless Conduct. d. While Operating a Motor Vehicle. 3. Whether to Award Exemplary Damages. 4. Amount of the Award. 5. Appellate Review--State Standard. 6. Appellate Review--Federal Due Process. 7. Vicarious Liability. 8. Insurance Coverage. B. Louisiana Civil Code Article 2315.7: Criminal Sexual Activity. C. Louisiana Revised Statutes Section 15:1312: Interception, Disclosure, or Use of Wire or Oral Communication. D. Louisiana Revised Statute Section 9:2800.76: Sale, Distribution, or Marketing of Illegal Contr...
Introduction. II. Background: Five Conceptual And Analytical Tools. A. The Seaman's Trilogy. B. The Distinction Between Compensatory and Punitive Damages. C. The Distinction Between Pecuniary Compensatory Damages and Non-Pecuniary Compensatory Damages. D. The Two Types of Fatal-Injury Litigation. E. The Distinction Between Causes of Action and Remedies. III. A Short Version Of The Maritime Punitive Damages Story. IV. An Analysis Of Miles. A. The Holdings and Reasoning of Miles. 1. Facts and Holding: Punitive Damages Were Not at Stake. 2. The Plaintiff's Two Causes of Action. 3. The Plaintiff's Two Fatal-Injury Remedies. B. Refuting the Revisionist Version of Miles. 1. Punitive Damages Are Easily Characterized as Pecuniary. 2. Miles Does Not Rule Out All Non-Pecuniary Damages For Seam...
In this Article, I argue that the current problem with punitive damages in the United States is not, as popularly is believed, that they are out of control and threatening the orderly function of the tort system. Punitive damages suffer from a different sort of crisis-courts now lack an adequate theory to explain to themselves, lawyers, and litigants the purpose of punitive damages. The argument contains the following steps. First, I illustrate that the dominant rationale in recent years for punitive damages has been efficient deterrence. Second, I argue that the current practice of punitive damages is ill-suited to the achievement of efficient deterrence, which explains why it has been so easy for critics of the tort system to characterize punitive damages as a failed branch of civil l...
In recent years, punitive damages have become a fashionable topic in the legal community -- and unsurprisingly so, given their prevalence and gaudy statistics. After all, civil plaintiffs in state courts of general jurisdiction win over $40 billion each year in punitive-damages awards, and this figure doesn't even include money recovered in federal court. More recently, in the litigation stemming from the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the Court used its common-law-making authority to place a more stringent ratio cap of one-to-one for punitive-to-compensatory damages in maritime cases. In this note, the author argues that the proper role -- the only role -- for punitive damages is to disincentivize tortfeasors from engaging in socially harmful conduct that would otherwise go undeterred. In ord...
Disclosures. II. Introduction And Definition Of The Issue. III. In The Supreme Court. IV. In The Lower Federal Courts Under General Maritime Law. V. Under State Law. VI. Under The Restatements. VII. : The Future In Maritime Law. A. The Policy. B. Arguments for a Special Rule in Maritime Law. C. Arguments for Vicarious Liability. D. Predictions. VIII. : The Future In General Law.
In Philip Morris USA v. Williams (2007), the United States Supreme Court decided that the Due Process Clause prohibits a state from using punitive damages awards to punish a defendant for injuries it inflicts upon non-parties, i.e. strangers to the litigation because such awards amount to a taking of property without due process, there being no fair notice of the severity of the penalty the state may impose (Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 2007). This decision is the third in the United States Supreme Court's recent forays into the constitutionality of punitive damages awards, but the first punitive damages case decided by the Court since the retirement of Justice O'Connor and the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist, and the addition of Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts to the Court (...
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Other interesting searches:
Mannesmann Rexroth AG | orthopedic braces | amendments to the constitution of the united states of america | 32 cfr section 2003 20 | Norton de Matos | traspaso de locales en lima | consommation alimentaire usa | murs d'eau | prescripcion penal concepto | despacho viceministro europa
