FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3123226034> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3123226034 startingPage "3" @default.
• W3123226034 abstract "Starting in the early 1990's, both the United States Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals of Maryland addressed the issue of jury discretion in awarding punitive damages. The two courts addressed the perceived problem in two different ways. The United States Supreme Court focused their attention mainly on the excessive amount of such awards. It held that the Due Process Clause regulates both the procedures used in awarding punitive damages and the amounts of such awards. The Court required that juries be given sufficient instructions to enable them to make awards based on the purpose of punitive damages, and required state trial judges and appellate courts to reduce the amount of such awards if they were “grossly excessive.” The Court provided state judges with guideposts for determining the appropriate amount of punitive damage awards and required that the amounts be proportionate to the amount of compensatory damages.The Court of Appeals of Maryland focused its attention instead on the proof required for a jury to make a punitive damages award in the first place. It held that punitive damage awards could only be made if the defendant's conduct rose to the level of actual malice (evil motive or intent to do harm, or knowing that its actions would be harmful) and not just implied malice (gross negligence, recklessness, or should have known of the harm). In addition, the Court of Appeals of Maryland held that juries should be instructed that they must find that actual malice had been proved by “clear and convincing evidence,” and not just a preponderance of the evidence. This article will suggest several changes to Maryland law and the Maryland Civil Pattern Jury Instructions, so that the instructions more accurately reflect Maryland law, and that Maryland law complies with the Due Process Clause. The proposed changes include:• providing a clearer standard in the instructions for when punitive damages should be awarded;• clarifying that the “clear and convincing” standard applies only to the finding of “actual malice” and not to the broader question of whether and in what amount to award punitive damages;• changing the law, the procedure and the jury instructions relating to whether and when a jury may consider evidence of the defendant's financial condition in calculating the amount of a punitive damage award; and• providing more guidance to juries as to the appropriate amount of punitive damage awards." @default.
• W3123226034 created "2021-02-01" @default.
• W3123226034 creator A5042302892 @default.
• W3123226034 date "2007-01-01" @default.
• W3123226034 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W3123226034 title "Punitive Damages in Maryland: Reconciling Federal Law, State Law, and the Pattern Jury Instructions" @default.
• W3123226034 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W3123226034 type Work @default.
• W3123226034 sameAs 3123226034 @default.
• W3123226034 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3123226034 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3123226034 hasAuthorship W3123226034A5042302892 @default.
• W3123226034 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3123226034 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3123226034 hasConcept C2776119841 @default.
• W3123226034 hasConcept C2777363581 @default.
• W3123226034 hasConcept C2777381055 @default.
• W3123226034 hasConcept C2777632292 @default.
• W3123226034 hasConcept C2778068216 @default.
• W3123226034 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W3123226034 hasConcept C2778803647 @default.
• W3123226034 hasConcept C2779180768 @default.
• W3123226034 hasConcept C83645499 @default.
• W3123226034 hasConcept C87001247 @default.
• W3123226034 hasConceptScore W3123226034C17744445 @default.
• W3123226034 hasConceptScore W3123226034C199539241 @default.
• W3123226034 hasConceptScore W3123226034C2776119841 @default.
• W3123226034 hasConceptScore W3123226034C2777363581 @default.
• W3123226034 hasConceptScore W3123226034C2777381055 @default.
• W3123226034 hasConceptScore W3123226034C2777632292 @default.
• W3123226034 hasConceptScore W3123226034C2778068216 @default.
• W3123226034 hasConceptScore W3123226034C2778272461 @default.
• W3123226034 hasConceptScore W3123226034C2778803647 @default.
• W3123226034 hasConceptScore W3123226034C2779180768 @default.
• W3123226034 hasConceptScore W3123226034C83645499 @default.
• W3123226034 hasConceptScore W3123226034C87001247 @default.
• W3123226034 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W3123226034 hasLocation W31232260341 @default.
• W3123226034 hasOpenAccess W3123226034 @default.
• W3123226034 hasPrimaryLocation W31232260341 @default.
• W3123226034 hasRelatedWork W1488240501 @default.
• W3123226034 hasRelatedWork W1498711809 @default.
• W3123226034 hasRelatedWork W1507572069 @default.
• W3123226034 hasRelatedWork W1545759714 @default.
• W3123226034 hasRelatedWork W1785557080 @default.
• W3123226034 hasRelatedWork W2167022112 @default.
• W3123226034 hasRelatedWork W219687651 @default.
• W3123226034 hasRelatedWork W2226969640 @default.
• W3123226034 hasRelatedWork W2254845617 @default.
• W3123226034 hasRelatedWork W2257180274 @default.
• W3123226034 hasRelatedWork W2267251576 @default.
• W3123226034 hasRelatedWork W227076592 @default.
• W3123226034 hasRelatedWork W238348018 @default.
• W3123226034 hasRelatedWork W251359989 @default.
• W3123226034 hasRelatedWork W2595880176 @default.
• W3123226034 hasRelatedWork W291149215 @default.
• W3123226034 hasRelatedWork W3125557622 @default.
• W3123226034 hasRelatedWork W335494985 @default.
• W3123226034 hasRelatedWork W391992378 @default.
• W3123226034 hasRelatedWork W43989118 @default.
• W3123226034 hasVolume "38" @default.
• W3123226034 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3123226034 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3123226034 magId "3123226034" @default.
• W3123226034 workType "article" @default.