MLJ Volume 36-1.pdf - Robson Hall Faculty of Law
MLJ Volume 36-1.pdf - Robson Hall Faculty of Law MLJ Volume 36-1.pdf - Robson Hall Faculty of Law
326 MANITOBA LAW JOURNAL|VOLUME 36 ISSUE 1 Oklahoma: three caps based on the degree of misconduct: the great of compensatory damages or 1000,000, the greater of five times compensatory damages, or $500,000, or unlimited Oregon: General cap of three times compensatory damages Tennessee: General cap of the greater of $500,000 or twice compensatory damages Texas: General cap of the greater of $250,000 or twice compensatory damages B. States Requiring Allocation of Awards Alaska: 50% of punitive damage awards shall go to the state Georgia: 75% of punitive damage awards shall go to the state Indiana: 75% of punitive damage awards shall go to the state Iowa: if the conduct of the defendant was not directed specifically at the claimant, 75% of punitive damage awards are paid into a state fund “for purposes of indigent civil litigation programs or insurance assistance programs.” Missouri: 50% of punitive damage awards shall go to the state “tort victims’ compensation fund”. C. States Permitting or Requiring Bifurcation of Trials Alaska: If liability for punitive damages is established, the same fact finder shall determine the amount in a separate proceeding Arkansas: Upon request, the finder of fact first determines if compensatory damages are warranted. In a separate proceeding, it determines if punitive damages are warranted and in what amount. Colorado: A claim for punitive damages is permitted only after discovery has established “prima facie proof of a triable issue:” on the underlying claim. Delaware: Punitive damages in medical negligence can only be awarded in a separate proceeding after determining liability for compensatory damages Georgia: Quantum of punitive damages must be determined in aa separate proceeding from liability for punitive damages. Idaho: in order to put forth a claim for punitive damages, the plaintiff must establish a “reasonable likelihood of proving
Pine Tree Justice 327 facts at trial sufficient to support an award of punitive damages” at a separate hearing Illinois: in order to put forth a claim for punitive damages, the plaintiff must establish a “reasonable likelihood of proving facts at trial sufficient to support an award of punitive damages” at a separate hearing. Upon request of the defendant, issues relating to punitive damages must be dealt with at a separate hearing subsequent to the determination of liability and the award of compensatory damages. Kansas: the size of punitive damage awards is determined at a separate hearing. Minnesota: the size of punitive damage awards is determined at a separate hearing. Mississippi: Liability for punitive damages established at a separate proceeding. North Carolina: upon motion of the defendant, liability for punitive damages shall be determined at a separate proceeding. Nevada: size of punitive damage awards shall be determined in a separate proceeding. New Jersey: upon the defendant’s request, liability for and quantum of punitive damages are determined at a separate proceeding. Ohio: upon the defendant’s request, liability for and quantum of punitive damages are determined at a separate proceeding. Oregon: the trial judge must review all punitive damage awards independently for rationality. Tennessee: Liability for and quantum of punitive damages are automatically bifurcated from the main proceeding. D. States requiring the “clear and convincing” standard of proof Alabama Alaska Arkansas Florida Georgia Idaho
- Page 287 and 288: Social Incrimination 275 unconnecte
- Page 289 and 290: Social Incrimination 277 that requi
- Page 291 and 292: Social Incrimination 279 While ther
- Page 293 and 294: Social Incrimination 281 issues aft
- Page 295 and 296: Social Incrimination 283 University
- Page 297 and 298: Social Incrimination 285 new forms
- Page 299 and 300: Pine Tree Justice: Punitive Damage
- Page 301 and 302: Pine Tree Justice 289 “exemplary
- Page 303 and 304: Pine Tree Justice 291 account of th
- Page 305 and 306: Pine Tree Justice 293 $1,000,000 wa
- Page 307 and 308: Pine Tree Justice 295 The difficult
- Page 309 and 310: Pine Tree Justice 297 nature, punit
- Page 311 and 312: Pine Tree Justice 299 B. Confusion
- Page 313 and 314: Pine Tree Justice 301 damages. It w
- Page 315 and 316: Pine Tree Justice 303 4. Analysis T
- Page 317 and 318: Pine Tree Justice 305 respective de
- Page 319 and 320: Pine Tree Justice 307 trial judge,
- Page 321 and 322: Pine Tree Justice 309 court and pun
- Page 323 and 324: Pine Tree Justice 311 in the absenc
- Page 325 and 326: Pine Tree Justice 313 suffered? In
- Page 327 and 328: Pine Tree Justice 315 denied even c
- Page 329 and 330: Pine Tree Justice 317 for punitive
- Page 331 and 332: Pine Tree Justice 319 I do not prop
- Page 333 and 334: Pine Tree Justice 321 would thereby
- Page 335 and 336: Pine Tree Justice 323 problem. It e
- Page 337: Pine Tree Justice 325 VIII. APPENDI
- Page 341 and 342: C O M M E N T A R Y Leveling the Pl
- Page 343 and 344: Levelling the Playing Field 331 the
- Page 345 and 346: Levelling the Playing Field 333 [f]
- Page 347 and 348: Levelling the Playing Field 335 evo
- Page 349 and 350: Levelling the Playing Field 337 in
- Page 351 and 352: Levelling the Playing Field 339 fin
- Page 353 and 354: B O O K R E V I E W Dams of Content
- Page 355 and 356: Dams of Contention 343 puppet who i
- Page 357 and 358: Dams of Contention 345 A detailed s
- Page 359 and 360: Dams of Contention 347 Environment
- Page 361 and 362: Dams of Contention 349 could be con
- Page 363 and 364: C O M M E N T A R Y The “Great Wr
- Page 365 and 366: The “Great Writ” Reinvigorated?
- Page 367 and 368: The “Great Writ” Reinvigorated?
- Page 369 and 370: The “Great Writ” Reinvigorated?
- Page 371 and 372: The “Great Writ” Reinvigorated?
- Page 373 and 374: C O M M E N T A R Y The DeLloyd Gut
- Page 375 and 376: Habeas Corpus, Legal History, and G
- Page 377 and 378: Habeas Corpus, Legal History, and G
- Page 379 and 380: Habeas Corpus, Legal History, and G
- Page 381 and 382: Habeas Corpus, Legal History, and G
- Page 383 and 384: Habeas Corpus, Legal History, and G
- Page 385 and 386: Habeas Corpus, Legal History, and G
- Page 387 and 388: Habeas Corpus, Legal History, and G
Pine Tree Justice 327<br />
facts at trial sufficient to support an award <strong>of</strong> punitive<br />
damages” at a separate hearing<br />
Illinois: in order to put forth a claim for punitive damages,<br />
the plaintiff must establish a “reasonable likelihood <strong>of</strong> proving<br />
facts at trial sufficient to support an award <strong>of</strong> punitive<br />
damages” at a separate hearing. Upon request <strong>of</strong> the<br />
defendant, issues relating to punitive damages must be dealt<br />
with at a separate hearing subsequent to the determination <strong>of</strong><br />
liability and the award <strong>of</strong> compensatory damages.<br />
Kansas: the size <strong>of</strong> punitive damage awards is determined at a<br />
separate hearing.<br />
Minnesota: the size <strong>of</strong> punitive damage awards is determined<br />
at a separate hearing.<br />
Mississippi: Liability for punitive damages established at a<br />
separate proceeding.<br />
North Carolina: upon motion <strong>of</strong> the defendant, liability for<br />
punitive damages shall be determined at a separate<br />
proceeding.<br />
Nevada: size <strong>of</strong> punitive damage awards shall be determined<br />
in a separate proceeding.<br />
New Jersey: upon the defendant’s request, liability for and<br />
quantum <strong>of</strong> punitive damages are determined at a separate<br />
proceeding.<br />
Ohio: upon the defendant’s request, liability for and quantum<br />
<strong>of</strong> punitive damages are determined at a separate proceeding.<br />
Oregon: the trial judge must review all punitive damage<br />
awards independently for rationality.<br />
Tennessee: Liability for and quantum <strong>of</strong> punitive damages are<br />
automatically bifurcated from the main proceeding.<br />
D. States requiring the “clear and convincing” standard <strong>of</strong><br />
pro<strong>of</strong><br />
Alabama<br />
Alaska<br />
Arkansas<br />
Florida<br />
Georgia<br />
Idaho
Change language