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
In addition to compensatorydamages in the amount of $50 million, Evangelista claims that she is also entitled to “punitive and/or exemplary damages for the wanton, willful, fraudulent, reckless acts of ZELTIQ which demonstrated a complete disregard and reckless indifference for the safety and welfare of the general public and to Ms.
Rademacher took a closer look at the BGH’s landmark decision from 1992, which deemed the concept of punitive damages intolerable in Germany mainly because its function to punish and deter doesn’t fall in the scope of German private law’s concept of strict compensation; punishment and deterrence are entirely reserved for criminal law.
The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in NewYork Times v. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. compensatorydamages and $300,000.00
Department of Energy (DOE) rule creating new product classes for short cycle washers and dryers (discussed above) and the DOE rule establishing an interim waiver process for test procedures for the energy efficiency program. NewYork v. 19, 2021); NewYork v. 21-1026 (D.C. 19, 2021); California v. 21-1035 (D.C.
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