Supreme Court and Me: Trapped in Time with Punitive Damages, The (original) (raw)

The Historical Continuity of Punitive Damages Awards: Reforming the Tort Reformers

American University Law Review, 1993

On November 30, 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp. 1 to review the constitutionality of a punitive damages award that was 526 times the actual damages. 2 The Court will determine whether a high ratio of punitive damages to actual damages violates a defendant's substantive due process rights in light of Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Haslip. 3 The Court will also determine whether West Virginia's

Touring the Punitive Damages Forest: A Proposed Roadmap

Touring the Punitive Damages Forest: A Proposed Roadmap, 2012

Punitive damages have for years been one of the most hotly debated legal topics around the common law world. In recent years, however, the interest in this subject seems to be shared increasingly by continental scholars. The scholarly literature on punitive damages is immense. It covers almost every aspect of the punitive damages phenomenon, from almost every angle (doctrinal, conceptual, philosophical, political, economic, historical, empirical, constitutional, and comparative). Surprisingly, however, there has been little academic effort to systematically organize the punitive damages field. What seems to be especially lacking is a roadmap which would be able to encapsulate the various aspects of the problem and to demonstrate the connection – or lack thereof – between these aspects. In this article, the author aims to offer the reader such a roadmap. The starting point is the author’s claim that forming an opinion on whether or not a doctrine of punitive damages may ever be justified and, if so, in which form, requires the posing and answering of a series of interrelated – but distinct –questions. The present article is an endeavor to present these questions and to discuss possible answers to them. It thus offers both continental and common law lawyers a draft roadmap, which might be of assistance to anyone willing to become more acquainted with, and more involved in, the punitive damages debate.

Happy No More: Federalism Derailed by the Court That Would Be King of Punitive Damages

Maryland Law Review, 2005

Law School. This Article is dedicated to Judge Guido Calabresi, who has appreciated and encouraged my scholarship on punitive damages from the start. This dedication in no way implies that he is responsible for any of my viewpoints. My study of the multiple functions of punitive damages was inspired by Calabresi's functionalist approach in The Costs of Accidents. I am grateful for the research assistance and editorial suggestions of

Punitive Damages Caps: A Proposed Middle Ground after Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker

Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 2010

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court expounded upon its punitive damages and substantive due process jurisprudence in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that substantive due process demands a 1:1 punitive-to-compensatory damages ratio cap in federal maritime cases. The majority in Exxon was concerned about outlier verdicts like the astronomical $5 billion punitive damages that the Exxon jury returned. Meanwhile, the minority was concerned that the cap stripped the jury of its function as spokesman of the community and that the cap left no room for juries to punish truly heinous crimes more harshly than less egregious acts. Could a middle ground possibly exist between these two views? Borrowing from Colorado statutory law and Arizona state court precedent, this Note argues that a 1:1 ratio cap should apply to all federal cases in order to reduce the number of outlier verdicts, but juries should have the power to overcome that cap if a plaintiff can prove (1) beyond a reasonable doubt that (2) a defendant acted with "an evil mind." Through the combined use of these two heightened standards-each of which are already used individually by some states, the Exxon minority's concerns about keeping the jury empowered would be alleviated, while still allowing the use of a ratio cap to reign in outlier verdicts. In this way, there exists a middle ground after Exxon.