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
by Salih Okur (University of Augsburg) On 8 and 9 March, scholars from more than a dozen different jurisdictions followed the invitation of Tobias Lutzi to discuss recent trends in punitivedamages at the University of Augsburg, Germany. Rademacher then analysed whether punitive elements could be found in German tort law.
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.
Notably, the jury awarded punitivedamages against the university, a relative rarity for juries but well deserved in this case. There seemed little balance struck in this case and the jury responded by hitting Auburn with punitivedamages. It awarded $145,000 in compensatorydamages and $500,000 in punitivedamages.
Where the gravamen of plaintiff’s complaint was his tort claim for defamation seeking unliquidated damages, the chancery court did not have subject matter jurisdiction and the case should have been transferred to circuit court. In Lowery v. Redmond , No. W2021-00611-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. internal citations and quotations omitted).
The fatal shooting at Bonanza Creek Ranch already has the makings of a blockbuster tort action. ” The question is not whether but when the first torts lawsuit will be filed. .” What is clear is that there is an abundance of evidence to support a tort action even at this early stage.
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 punitivedamages. Congress recognized the threat that tort-based lawsuits pose to freedom of speech in the new and burgeoning Internet medium.
Altogether, the plaintiffs have charged four claims against the defendants: defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy and aiding and abetting claims with respect to the said tort claims.
The complaint asked the court for compensatorydamages, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, punitivedamages, disgorgement of profits, and costs of suit. Maui asserted causes of action for public nuisance, private nuisance, strict liability failure to warn, negligent failure to warn, and trespass. County of Maui v.
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