FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W328045463> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W328045463 startingPage "473" @default.
• W328045463 abstract "I. INTRODUCTION While Supreme Court possesses plenary power in several distinct areas of tort law, including admiralty, Jones Act, and FELA issues, it has generally adhered to traditional notions of federalism and allowed area of tort law, including awarding of punitive damages, to remain with states. Thus, Supreme Court's decision to step into punitive damage arena in 1989 to examine constitutionality of these awards, after years of leaving review process to states, seems inconsistent with its traditional view. What caused Court to finally conclude that this was an area warranting its review? What factors played a role in its ultimate decision to become involved? An examination of Court's decisions on this subject over past fifteen years illustrates an asserted common theme: punitive damages had become a national that mandated its attention. Justice O'Connor's opinions repeatedly emphasized claim that awards were skyrocketing,1 and Justice Blackmun, speaking for majority in Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Haslip, articulated concern over punitive damages that had run wild.2 What caused Court to conclude that situation was so out of control as to justify its action when empirical data did not, in fact, conclusively suggest that there was such a crisis? The answer is not clear, yet there are several potential reasons why Court eventually came to this conclusion, including tort reform campaigns in media as well as dramatic accounts of crisis within petitioner and amici briefs submitted to Court. Ultimately, however, while some cause for concern did legitimately exist, uncontrolled was more fiction than fact. Numerous state legislatures, perhaps influenced by same focus on tort reform in media, were in process of enacting or finetuning already-existing tort reform measures in late 1980s, while others followed closely behind in early 1990s. Further, skyrocketing frequency and amounts of punitive damage awards were much less dramatic than briefs on petitioners' side and media accounts suggested. This Note will examine several possible reasons prompting Supreme Court to step in and take a role in placing limits on punitive damage awards. It will also demonstrate that information relied upon by Court was not entirely accurate and that crisis was already being addressed by appropriate bodies-the state legislatures. II. A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARENA The subject of punitive damages has traditionally been an area overseen by state legislatures and state courts. However, in 1988, Supreme Court granted certiorari in Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelso Disposal, Inc.3 to determine if $6 million punitive damages award in a Vermont district court case violated Excessive Fines Clause of Eighth Amendment. After jury was instructed that it could award punitive damages if there was clear and convincing evidence that defendant's conduct revealed actual malice, outrageous conduct, or constituted a willful and wanton or reckless disregard of plaintiffs rights, district court jury returned a verdict of $51,146 in compensatory damages and $6 million in punitive damages against defendant.4 The second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed verdict and found no violation of Eighth Amendment.5 The Supreme Court, after extensively reviewing history of Eighth Amendment, found that the Excessive Fines Clause was intended to limit only those fines directly imposed by, and payable to, government, and thus did not apply to a dispute between private parties.6 The Court then declined to address issue of whether a punitive damage award could violate Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment, stating that, since parties did not raise issue, inquiry must await another day,7 perhaps with intention of inviting future due-process challenges to such awards. …" @default.
• W328045463 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W328045463 creator A5084992466 @default.
• W328045463 date "2005-04-01" @default.
• W328045463 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W328045463 title "Unwarranted Entry: An Examination of the Supreme Court's Decision to Enter the Punitive Damages Arena" @default.
• W328045463 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W328045463 type Work @default.
• W328045463 sameAs 328045463 @default.
• W328045463 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W328045463 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W328045463 hasAuthorship W328045463A5084992466 @default.
• W328045463 hasConcept C139621336 @default.
• W328045463 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W328045463 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W328045463 hasConcept C200635333 @default.
• W328045463 hasConcept C2776512386 @default.
• W328045463 hasConcept C2777381055 @default.
• W328045463 hasConcept C2777834853 @default.
• W328045463 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W328045463 hasConcept C2778803647 @default.
• W328045463 hasConcept C83645499 @default.
• W328045463 hasConceptScore W328045463C139621336 @default.
• W328045463 hasConceptScore W328045463C17744445 @default.
• W328045463 hasConceptScore W328045463C199539241 @default.
• W328045463 hasConceptScore W328045463C200635333 @default.
• W328045463 hasConceptScore W328045463C2776512386 @default.
• W328045463 hasConceptScore W328045463C2777381055 @default.
• W328045463 hasConceptScore W328045463C2777834853 @default.
• W328045463 hasConceptScore W328045463C2778272461 @default.
• W328045463 hasConceptScore W328045463C2778803647 @default.
• W328045463 hasConceptScore W328045463C83645499 @default.
• W328045463 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W328045463 hasLocation W3280454631 @default.
• W328045463 hasOpenAccess W328045463 @default.
• W328045463 hasPrimaryLocation W3280454631 @default.
• W328045463 hasRelatedWork W2267131473 @default.
• W328045463 hasRelatedWork W2282559894 @default.
• W328045463 hasRelatedWork W2305374421 @default.
• W328045463 hasRelatedWork W236660561 @default.
• W328045463 hasRelatedWork W2608436946 @default.
• W328045463 hasRelatedWork W282745096 @default.
• W328045463 hasRelatedWork W286454788 @default.
• W328045463 hasRelatedWork W2961138080 @default.
• W328045463 hasRelatedWork W2980747223 @default.
• W328045463 hasRelatedWork W2993256919 @default.
• W328045463 hasRelatedWork W301539970 @default.
• W328045463 hasRelatedWork W3034054792 @default.
• W328045463 hasRelatedWork W3123002638 @default.
• W328045463 hasRelatedWork W3146650419 @default.
• W328045463 hasRelatedWork W3158001286 @default.
• W328045463 hasRelatedWork W3211916762 @default.
• W328045463 hasRelatedWork W60891034 @default.
• W328045463 hasRelatedWork W622180097 @default.
• W328045463 hasRelatedWork W106370253 @default.
• W328045463 hasRelatedWork W3122585268 @default.
• W328045463 hasVolume "24" @default.
• W328045463 isParatext "false" @default.
• W328045463 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W328045463 magId "328045463" @default.
• W328045463 workType "article" @default.