Punitive Damages

The most important U.S. Supreme Court cases involving the constitutional limits on punitive damages awards, including State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003). See 2002 WL 31387421, 2004 WL 1907049 (briefs); BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996). See 1995 WL 330613, 1995 WL 623532 (briefs); Honda Motor Co. v. Oberg, 512 U.S. 415 (1994). See 1994 WL 144961, 1994 WL 114674 (briefs); TXO Production Co. v. Alliance Resources Corp., 509 U.S. 443 (1993). See 1993 WL 469320 (brief).

Leatherman Tool Group in a trademark and unfair competition appeal presenting the question of the proper standard of appellate review in punitive damages cases. Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424 (2001). See 2001 WL 43395 (brief) (U.S. Supreme Court).

The Chicago Title Insurance Company in a punitive damages case presenting three constitutional questions relating to the due process “guideposts” of BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1995), and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003). Chicago Title Ins. Corp. v. First American Title Ins. Co., 128 S. Ct. 1125 (2008). See 2008 WL 87969, 2007 WL 4104382 (briefs) (U.S. Supreme Court).

Bertelsmann, A.G. in a case involving alleged copyright penalties and constitutional limits on the potential aggregation of statutory penalties. In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litigation, 2006 WL 4122251 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2006) (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California).

Other punitive damages cases including:

Combustion Engineering, Inc. v. McGill, 528 U.S. 931 (1999), 517 U.S. 1217 (1996). See 1999 WL 33640471, 1998 WL 34089865, 1998 WL 34089617, 1996 WL 33438387, 1995 WL 17145446 (briefs) (U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit).

Union Security Life Ins. Co. v. Crocker, 523 U.S. 1074 (1998), 517 U.S. 1230 (1996). See 1996 WL 33439664, 1995 WL 17047764 (briefs) (U.S. Supreme Court).

Lemond Construction Co. v. Wheeler, 516 U.S. 1146 (1996). See 1996 WL 33467851 (brief) (U.S. Supreme Court).

An aerospace company and its CEO in a malpractice action against its former law firm.