Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
White v. Ford Motor Co.: Using Federalism to Rein in Punitive Damages Awards
It is often the case that juries are only too eager to award punitive damages that are excessively large when compared to the potential damages or actual damage done. In 1996, the Supreme Court made an effort in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, to curb the effects of this behavior by imposing territorial limitations on the conduct that juries may consider when calculating the size of punitive damages. Specifically, the Court held that states could not consider out-of-state conduct in punitive damages calculations when such conduct was legal in other states. The BMW decision was based on principles of state sovereignty, comity, federalism, and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Recently, a potentially landmark opinion, White v. Ford Motor Co., 2 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11 (9th Cir. 2002), came down from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. White applies the policies underlying the BMW decision to extend the territorial limitation on punitive damages. The White court held that, in addition to being barred from considering out-of-state conduct when such conduct is legal in other states, a state is barred from considering extraterritorial conduct even when such conduct is illegal in other states. A petition for rehearing the White case is currently pending in the Ninth Circuit. Depending upon whether rehearing is granted and, if so, how the rehearing is decided, the decision in White to mandate jury instructions on extraterritorial limitations could become settled Ninth Circuit law.
The Standard of Unconstitutional Punitive Damages Under BMW
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 Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?