Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Punitive Damages: How Much Is Too Much? Two Recent California Supreme Court Opinions Leave the Question Unanswered
In June 2005, in two companion decisions, the California Supreme Court for the first time interpreted a line of recent, landmark U.S. Supreme Court opinions on punitive damages. In so doing, the California Supreme Court attempted to bring clarity to the politically charged and legally nettlesome issue of when punitive damage awards become constitutionally excessive. However, the court's decisions may raise more questions than they answer. Instead of setting a bright-line rule for lower courts and litigants to follow (such as a fixed ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages beyond which punitive damages must not go ' something some courts of appeal attempted to do in response to the high court's landmark opinions), the court in Lionel Simon v. San Paolo U.S. Holding Co., Inc. No. S121723 (June 16, 2005) (“Simon“), and Greg Johnson, et al., v. Ford Motor Company, No. S121933 (June 16, 2005) (“Johnson“), elected to constrain, but fundamentally preserve, the possibility of truly punishing punitive damage awards.
U.S. Supreme Court Establishes New Limits on Punitive Damages
Punitive damages have been a part of American jurisprudence for more than a 150 years. Day v. Woodworth, 54 U.S. 363, 371 (1851). However, it is only within the last 9 years that the Supreme Court has begun setting limits and standards for the award of punitive damages. The two touchstone cases in this limiting process are BMW of North America v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) and State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003).
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.
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.
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.