FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W291149215> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W291149215 startingPage "27" @default.
• W291149215 abstract "I join the Court's opinion on the understanding that it leaves the door open for a holding that the due process clause constrains the imposition of punitive in civil cases brought by private parties. -- Justice Brennan, concurring in Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal Inc., 492 U.S. 257, 280 (1989). IN JUNE 1993, in TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp.,(1) the U.S. Supreme Court had the opportunity to swing open the door for due process challenges to punitive by holding that the punitive award in that case violated due But the plurality decision produced four separate opinions from the justices, showing that there is no discernible coalition on the Court on this issue. TXO also continued the High Court's record of never having overturned a punitive damage award. Although the net decision in TXO found that the Constitution places substantive limits on punitive damage awards, it appears to retreat from the more definitive position the Court announced a year earlier in Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Haslip.(2) Then a year later, in June 1994, the Court reviewed another case involving a constitutional challenge to a punitive award. In Honda Motor Co. v. Oberg(3) the Court reversed and remanded based on a procedural due process challenge to a punitive award. Although the Court reversed on procedural grounds, it continued to acknowledge that excessive verdicts could occur, but again it refused to create standards to determine excessiveness. PUNITIVE DAMAGES A. Historical Perspective Punitive are meant to punish defendants or to deter the likelihood of the wrongful conduct being repeated. The concept of punitive has long been a part of our legal history. Predecessors of modem punitive can be traced to the Bible, the Hindu Code and the Babylon Code.(4) In English common law, punitive were used to supplement criminal law and were imposed antisocial conduct that was otherwise undeterred by the criminal law.(5) In England and originally in the United States, punitive were confined to the narrow group of intentional torts. In the United States the first case to award exemplary was Genay v. Norris,(6) in which the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld vindictive damages against a physician who spiked the wine of the person with whom he was to duel with very powerful drugs. In the early decisions, punitive were awarded for conduct that was willful and wanton, but not usually for gross negligence. However, in the past few decades, the application of punitive has grown dramatically. Many commentators believe that they are out of control.(7) At least one ties the punitive explosion to these legal developments: (1) the expansion from intentional torts to product liability; (2) mass torts, where one defendant can repeatedly be found liable for punitive for basically the same conduct; and (3) their award in some contract cases contrary to the settled law.(8) B. Constitutional Challenges Under traditional common law, the Supreme Court said in Haslip, juries award punitive damages, if applicable, after being instructed to consider the gravity of the wrong and the need to deter similar wrongful conduct. Punitive awards then are reviewed by the trial court and appropriate appellate courts. Justice Blackmun, in his opinion for the Court in Haslip, noted every state and federal court that has considered the question has ruled that the common law method for assessing punitive does not in itself violate due process. However, he also acknowledged that unlimited jury or judicial discretion in awarding punitive could invite extreme results that jar one's constitutional sensibilities. The constitutional arguments most frequently raised are founded on either the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines prohibition or the 14th Amendment's due process clause, which prohibits depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. …" @default.
• W291149215 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W291149215 creator A5002756170 @default.
• W291149215 date "1995-01-01" @default.
• W291149215 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W291149215 title "Are Constitutional Challenges to Punitive Damages Still Available" @default.
• W291149215 hasPublicationYear "1995" @default.
• W291149215 type Work @default.
• W291149215 sameAs 291149215 @default.
• W291149215 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W291149215 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W291149215 hasAuthorship W291149215A5002756170 @default.
• W291149215 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W291149215 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W291149215 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W291149215 hasConcept C2778428080 @default.
• W291149215 hasConcept C2778803647 @default.
• W291149215 hasConcept C83645499 @default.
• W291149215 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
• W291149215 hasConceptScore W291149215C17744445 @default.
• W291149215 hasConceptScore W291149215C199539241 @default.
• W291149215 hasConceptScore W291149215C2778272461 @default.
• W291149215 hasConceptScore W291149215C2778428080 @default.
• W291149215 hasConceptScore W291149215C2778803647 @default.
• W291149215 hasConceptScore W291149215C83645499 @default.
• W291149215 hasConceptScore W291149215C97460637 @default.
• W291149215 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W291149215 hasLocation W2911492151 @default.
• W291149215 hasOpenAccess W291149215 @default.
• W291149215 hasPrimaryLocation W2911492151 @default.
• W291149215 hasRelatedWork W1488240501 @default.
• W291149215 hasRelatedWork W1497945603 @default.
• W291149215 hasRelatedWork W1498711809 @default.
• W291149215 hasRelatedWork W1507572069 @default.
• W291149215 hasRelatedWork W2167022112 @default.
• W291149215 hasRelatedWork W219687651 @default.
• W291149215 hasRelatedWork W2254845617 @default.
• W291149215 hasRelatedWork W2257180274 @default.
• W291149215 hasRelatedWork W2267251576 @default.
• W291149215 hasRelatedWork W227076592 @default.
• W291149215 hasRelatedWork W238348018 @default.
• W291149215 hasRelatedWork W2397145447 @default.
• W291149215 hasRelatedWork W251359989 @default.
• W291149215 hasRelatedWork W2595880176 @default.
• W291149215 hasRelatedWork W3121190222 @default.
• W291149215 hasRelatedWork W3124928706 @default.
• W291149215 hasRelatedWork W3125557622 @default.
• W291149215 hasRelatedWork W3125630745 @default.
• W291149215 hasRelatedWork W335494985 @default.
• W291149215 hasRelatedWork W64221148 @default.
• W291149215 hasVolume "62" @default.
• W291149215 isParatext "false" @default.
• W291149215 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W291149215 magId "291149215" @default.
• W291149215 workType "article" @default.