Add to ORKGA sanction that is unrelated to misconduct is criminal and requires criminal instead of civil procedure. In a product liability lawsuit, the respondent, Goodyear, failed to turn over important tests before the parties settled. The petitioners, the Haegers—a couple who alleged Goodyear’s tires caused injuries—sought approval of a sanction based on their attorney fees. Complex and technical civil procedural rules and statutes, contempt, and the court’s inherent power will govern the Supreme Court’s decision. The issue before the Court is the specificity of the causal link between Goodyear’s misconduct and the amount of the civil sanction
In Lenhardt v. Ford Motor Co., the Supreme Court of Washington held that evidence of industry custom...
A sued B for injuries arising out of a collision between B\u27s taxicab and an automobile driven by ...
In a series of cases decided over the last two decades, the Supreme Court has used the Due Process C...
In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously vacated a $2.7 million fee-shifting award imposed on Goo...
In this article, Professor Jeffrey Stempel explores the implications the decision in Haeger v. Goody...
Throughout the past two decades, the United States Supreme Court has gradually formed several proced...
Civil Procedure-DISCOVERY SANCTIONS-TRIAL COURT\u27S IMPOSITION OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT FOR WILLFUL NONC...
In light of increasing punitive damages awards, the United States Supreme Court formulated criteria ...
In Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, the Supreme Court’s most recent opinion on punitive damage awards, t...
This essay uses the Supreme Court’s 2009 opinion describing the version of the harmless error rule c...
In 2003, the Supreme Court created a presumption that only single-digit ratios of punitive damages t...
This Note will consider whether punitive damages can withstand a constitutional challenge brought un...
Thus the issue facing the court was whether California\u27s concept of strict liability necessarily ...
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has affirmed that punitive damages are not available to a plaintiff i...
Defendants, professional consulting engineers, contracted with the city of Chattanooga to design a s...
In Lenhardt v. Ford Motor Co., the Supreme Court of Washington held that evidence of industry custom...
A sued B for injuries arising out of a collision between B\u27s taxicab and an automobile driven by ...
In a series of cases decided over the last two decades, the Supreme Court has used the Due Process C...
In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously vacated a $2.7 million fee-shifting award imposed on Goo...
In this article, Professor Jeffrey Stempel explores the implications the decision in Haeger v. Goody...
Throughout the past two decades, the United States Supreme Court has gradually formed several proced...
Civil Procedure-DISCOVERY SANCTIONS-TRIAL COURT\u27S IMPOSITION OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT FOR WILLFUL NONC...
In light of increasing punitive damages awards, the United States Supreme Court formulated criteria ...
In Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, the Supreme Court’s most recent opinion on punitive damage awards, t...
This essay uses the Supreme Court’s 2009 opinion describing the version of the harmless error rule c...
In 2003, the Supreme Court created a presumption that only single-digit ratios of punitive damages t...
This Note will consider whether punitive damages can withstand a constitutional challenge brought un...
Thus the issue facing the court was whether California\u27s concept of strict liability necessarily ...
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has affirmed that punitive damages are not available to a plaintiff i...
Defendants, professional consulting engineers, contracted with the city of Chattanooga to design a s...
In Lenhardt v. Ford Motor Co., the Supreme Court of Washington held that evidence of industry custom...
A sued B for injuries arising out of a collision between B\u27s taxicab and an automobile driven by ...
In a series of cases decided over the last two decades, the Supreme Court has used the Due Process C...