Clifford's contention about the reprehensibility of believing without or against the evidence still stands.
|
|
These general beliefs about the varying degrees of reprehensibility of crimes are supported by empirical evidence.
|
|
The court held that subsequent acts of repair should lessen the jury's final judgement about the reprehensibility of an act.
|
|
Stevens acknowledged that district courts may be better situated than appellate courts to determine the reprehensibility of a defendant's conduct.
|
|
Much of the Court's opinion addresses evidence under the reprehensibility guidepost concerning State Farm's national scheme to limit payouts on claims.
|
|
Justices considered such factors as harm to the victim, reprehensibility of the action and state criminal and civil penalties when making their decision.
|
|
Its reprehensibility apart, this form of control is hardly enforceable in the long run, given that women's collection activities are necessary for household subsistence.
|
|
Logically, there is no justification for having children's ability to knowingly engage in conduct turn on the social reprehensibility of the conduct in question.
|
|
He said juries may consider that evidence in assessing the reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct but not to punish the defendant for harm caused to others.
|
|
Attempting to prove the legal reprehensibility of the enemy can only result in entangling one's own forces in the very litigation one is attempting to impose on the enemy.
|
|
The court said that judges will have to be vigilant in ensuring that jurors consider harm to others only in assessing reprehensibility, not in deciding the level of punitive damages.
|
|
Despite an idiocy metastasized into the marrow of its script impervious to any radiation, there is, as with many of Sandler's productions, at least something of an upbeat quality to its reprehensibility.
|
|
On appeal, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated the $79.5 million judgment. Following the "guideposts" established in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, the Court of Appeals examined whether the punitive damages were appropriate based on (1) the degree of reprehensibility of the conduct, (2) the disparity between the actual harm and the punitive damages, and (3) the difference between the punitive damages and civil penalties allowed in similar cases. While determining the reprehensibility of Philip Morris's actions, the court considered the length of the misinformation campaign and the number of people it had reached, concluding that its actions were so reprehensible that they justified punitive damages 97 times greater than the actual damages.
|
|
On remand, the Supreme Court of Alabama ordered a new trial unless plaintiff accepted a remittitur of all but $50,000 of the punitive damages awarded.BMW, Inc. v. Gore, 701 So. 2d 507 (Ala. 1997) The court reasoned that it may not have given sufficient weight to the degree of reprehensibility of BMW's conduct, and selected the $50,000 as in the range of other Alabama verdicts in cases of repaired cars being sold as new.
|
|
In BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore (1996), the Court ruled that an excessive punitive award can amount to an arbitrary deprivation of property in violation of due process. The Court held that punitive damages must be reasonable, as determined by the degree of reprehensibility of the conduct that caused the plaintiff's injury, the ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages, and any comparable criminal or civil penalties applicable to the conduct. In State Farm Auto. Ins. v.
|
|
Thus, Rothbard stated that parents should have the legal right to let any infant die by starvation and should be free to engage in other forms of child neglect. However, according to Rothbard, "the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children". In a fully libertarian society, he wrote, "the existence of a free baby market will bring such 'neglect' down to a minimum". Economist Gene Callahan of Cardiff University, formerly a scholar at the Rothbard-affiliated Mises Institute, observes that Rothbard allows "the logical elegance of his legal theory" to "trump any arguments based on the moral reprehensibility of a parent idly watching her six-month-old child slowly starve to death in its crib".
|
|
The Court, in an opinion by Justice Stevens, found that the excessively high punitive damages in this case violate the Due Process clause. For punitive damages to stand, the damages must be reasonably necessary to vindicate the State's legitimate interest in punishment and deterrence. Punitive damages may not be "grossly excessive" – if they are, then they violate substantive due process. The Supreme Court applied three factors in making this determination: # The degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct; # The ratio to the compensatory damages awarded (actual or potential harm inflicted on the plaintiff); and # Comparison of the punitive damages award and civil or criminal penalties that could be imposed for comparable misconduct.
|
|
However the elders did not object to testifying once the court found that "the privilege of penitential communication did not apply". In June 2012 the Superior Court of Alameda, California, ordered the Watchtower Society to pay US$21 million in punitive damages, in addition to compensatory damages, holding that the Society's policy to not disclose child abuse history of a member to parents in the congregation or to report abuse to authorities contributed to the sexual abuse of a nine-year-old girl. The court held that congregation elders, following the policies of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, contributed to the abuse. It held that the elders as agents of the Watchtower Society failed to disclose to other parents regarding the confession of the molester who inappropriately touched his step-daughter, adding that the degree of reprehensibility was of "medium range".
|
|
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the due process clause usually limits punitive damage awards to less than ten times the size of the compensatory damages awarded and that punitive damage awards of four times the compensatory damage award is "close to the line of constitutional impropriety". The Court reached this conclusion applying guideposts first noted in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996), requiring courts to consider: # the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's misconduct; # the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award; and # the difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases.
|
|