Frederick H. Hope v. Hearst Consolidated Publications, Inc., the Hearst Corporation and Igor Cassini

Were this merely another case in which the damages awarded were “excessive” but not “grossly excessive” 1 or high but “not monstrous,” 2 a dissent in this case would add nothing to the literature already available on the subject or to the analyses found in the various opinions in Southern Pacific Co. v. Guthrie, 9 Cir., 1951, 186 F.2d 926 or the suggestion of power to review damages found in a recent opinion in this circuit *692(Dagnello v. Long Island R. R. Co., 2 Cir., 1961, 289 F.2d 797. Actually, such adjectives as monstrous, inordinate, outrageous and excessive are meaningless as legal…