Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Online: Learn About Punitive Damages on the Web
There is a wealth of information about punitive damages on the Internet, including the Web sites of various organizations and law schools, as well as blogs. Here is a sample of what's available.
The American Tort Reform Association (“ATRA”) Web site provides arguments in favor of limiting punitive damages, www.atra.org. ATRA's position is that the U.S. Supreme Court has expressed serious concern in recent years that punitive damages awards in this country have “run wild,” jeopardizing fundamental constitutional rights. The Court has provided some general controls, holding that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment imposes both substantive limits on the size of punitive damages awards and procedural limits on when and how punitive damages may be awarded. ATRA thinks excessive punitive damages awards continue to be a major problem in many states. It provides information on the history of punitive damages and their “In Terrorem” effect on the tort system.
There are also articles on the topic, some of which are available to download, eg, at ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwple/0501002.html, you can obtain “Punitive Damages and the Processing of Tort Claims,” by Eaton, Mustard, and Talarico. There is an abstract available. The authors state that their paper represents the first empirical examination of the implication that the uncertainty and unpredictability that punitive damage claims inject into a case may increase both the rate and amount of settlements, thus implying that punitive damages carry systemic consequences for the general processing of tort claims.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.