This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The US Supreme Courtruled 8-1 Monday in Uzuegbunam v. The courtruled that Article 3 standing’s redressability element is satisfied if the plaintiffs’ claim is based on a completed violation of a legal right. Further, according to the court, nominal damages by themselves can redress a past injury.
The courtruled that, between 1977 and 1978, “a number of war crimes were committed with the knowledge and participation of the defendant.” ” The court also ordered compensatorydamages for victims. Later, without any fair trial, they were executed in a barbaric manner.
The jury awarded Hardeman $75 million in punitive damages, but the federal judge overseeing the trial reduced the punitive damages to $20 million. The jury also awarded Hardeman $5 million in compensatorydamages for past and future pain and suffering.
Further, where the fraud was related to the purchase of plaintiff’s home, and the jury awarded plaintiff the amount she paid for the home in compensatorydamages, that award was affirmed. On appeal, the verdict for compensatorydamages was affirmed, but the punitive award was vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
The US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from North Carolina on Monday over the constitutionality of a state law allowing employers to sue employees working as undercover investigators. ” The denial from the Supreme Court offered no explanation or reasoning.
Natural Resources Defense Council , the Supreme Courtruled that courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute as long as that interpretation is reasonable. On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to reconsider its ruling in Chevron. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit reversed.
The parties reached a settlement on the negligence claims, and the trial court ordered disbursement of the settlement proceeds to plaintiff as surviving spouse.
Plaintiff’s initial complaint was filed in May 2009 and sought $1 million in compensatorydamages and $1 million in punitive damages. Defendant was never served with this amended complaint, but the trial court entered a final judgment awarding plaintiff $3 million in total damages in August 2017. In Turner v.
Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested to Waggoner that most lawsuits would still be able to go forward even if a request for nominal damages, standing alone, was not enough to keep a case alive. Alito pressed Pinson, asking whether an award of $10 in statutory damages would be large enough for the lawsuit to go forward.
In its earlier summary judgment ruling , the court began with a discussion of the highly analogous case of Pickering v. In that case, the Supreme Courtruled in favor of public high school teacher Marvin Pickering, who wrote a letter to the local newspaper criticizing a school board’s allocation of funding for athletic programs.
Assume that you successfully obtained a favourable judgment from a foreign court that orders the losing party to pay punitive damages in addition to compensatorydamages. Again, the issue of punitive damages was not raised before the Supreme Court. Introduction.
Despite this history, a new decision out of the High Court is still shocking in its implications for further attacks on free speech. The courtruled that newspapers and television stations that post articles on social media sites like Facebook are liable for other third party comments on those posts. punitive damages.
Montana Department of Revenue , the Supreme Courtruled that although states are not required to subsidize private education, states that choose to do so cannot exclude religious schools from receiving funding simply because they are religious. She sought compensatorydamages for “humiliation, frustration, and emotional distress.”
At trial, a jury awarded Epic (as relevant here) $140 million in compensatorydamages and $700 million in punitive damages. But relying on a Wisconsin law that limits punitive damages to either $200,000 or twice the compensatorydamages award, the trial judge reduced the punitive damages award to $420 million.
The court, which did not address the plaintiffs’ arguments regarding alleged inadequacies in the climate change-related analyses, found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or that they would suffer irreparable harm. Ministry of Economic Affairs (Taipei Administrative Court).
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content