Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Attacking the Root of the Punitive Damages Problem
On Feb. 20, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision on punitive damages in Philip Morris USA v. Williams, __ S.Ct.__ , 2007 WL 505781 when it found a jury's $79.5 million punitive damage award, assessed in conjunction with $821,000 in compensatory damages for negligence and deceit in misleading a smoker to believe that smoking was safe, was unconstitutional. Instead of reducing yet another runaway punitive damage award, the 5 to 4 majority of the Court attacked the root of the problem: unfair punitive damages trial procedures.
This decision may indicate that the Court, operating under Chief Justice Roberts, is considerably more aggressive in protecting the constitutional rights of punitive damage defendants than was the Rehnquist Court. While the latter generally addressed punitive damages every two to three years, it tended to reduce punitive damage awards on substantive due process grounds. The Williams case presented the Roberts Court with an easy opportunity to do the same. Instead, the Roberts Court changed the rules, and required change to the trial court procedures, which frequently generate unconstitutionally excessive punitive damage awards. This is a very significant win for defendants, hopefully indicating the future direction of the Roberts Court on punitive damages.
Impact on Corporate Defendants
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?