The doctrine of punitive damages truly is an ancient legal concept that inexplicably has evaded commitment to the archives of history. Irrespective of the questionable validity of the doctrine at early common law, the simple fact remains that none of the historical justifications supports the punitive damage theory in today\u27s tort reparations system. The quest to bestow increasing compensation no longer can justify punitive damage awards because actual damages currently recoverable compensate plaintiffs more than adequately for every conceivable element of physical, emotional, or imagined injury. The desire to inflict punishment, likewise, represents an insupportable basis for awarding quasi-criminal fines in a civil context, and is inco...
In Philip Morris v. Williams, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not permit the impos...
The practice of using punitive damages to punish a tort defendant, in a single case brought by a sin...
The U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in BMW v. Gore (1996) in May. This decision triggere...
In 2001 the Supreme Court, in Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. suggested that,...
This Article aims to revisit the historical development of the doctrine of exemplary or punitive dam...
Punitive damages occupy a special place in the U.S. legal system. Courts award them in very few case...
Punitive damages constitute an award to an injured party above what is necessary to compensate for a...
A contemporary theory of punitive damages must answer two questions: (1) what place, if any, do puni...
This Article focuses on the concept that punitive damages can be justified as a substitute for compe...
This Article aims to revisit the historical development of the doctrine ofexemplary or punitive dama...
The recent landmark Supreme Court decision addressing punitive damages in the infamous Exxon Valdez ...
Punitive, or exemplary damages, have been recognized in the Anglo-American common law systems for tw...
Both ancient Roman and contemporary American tort law recognize a type of damages that, instead of c...
This Casenote examines the role of punitive damages in tort law and the actions of the Ohio Supreme ...
In Philip Morris v. Williams, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not permit the impos...
The practice of using punitive damages to punish a tort defendant, in a single case brought by a sin...
The U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in BMW v. Gore (1996) in May. This decision triggere...
In 2001 the Supreme Court, in Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. suggested that,...
This Article aims to revisit the historical development of the doctrine of exemplary or punitive dam...
Punitive damages occupy a special place in the U.S. legal system. Courts award them in very few case...
Punitive damages constitute an award to an injured party above what is necessary to compensate for a...
A contemporary theory of punitive damages must answer two questions: (1) what place, if any, do puni...
This Article focuses on the concept that punitive damages can be justified as a substitute for compe...
This Article aims to revisit the historical development of the doctrine ofexemplary or punitive dama...
The recent landmark Supreme Court decision addressing punitive damages in the infamous Exxon Valdez ...
Punitive, or exemplary damages, have been recognized in the Anglo-American common law systems for tw...
Both ancient Roman and contemporary American tort law recognize a type of damages that, instead of c...
This Casenote examines the role of punitive damages in tort law and the actions of the Ohio Supreme ...
In Philip Morris v. Williams, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not permit the impos...
The practice of using punitive damages to punish a tort defendant, in a single case brought by a sin...
The U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in BMW v. Gore (1996) in May. This decision triggere...