Legal Opinion

Holdgrafer v. Unocal Corp.

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 4, 2008No. B175953PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

PERREN, J.

In deciding whether a punitive damages award violates the constitutional prohibition of arbitrary or grossly excessive punishment, the most important factor to be considered is the reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct. The United States Supreme Court has instructed courts undertaking this inquiry that “[a] defendant’s dissimilar acts, independent from the acts upon which liability was premised, may not serve as the basis for punitive damages.” On de novo review, we conclude that evidence of two massive oil spills is too dissimilar to be considered in assessing…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. BMW of North America, Inc. v. GoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  2. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. CampbellSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  3. Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2001
  4. People v. EwoldtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Philip Morris USA v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 2007

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2011
  2. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Superior Court of Sacramento Cnty., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
  3. Wind Dancer Production Group v. Walt Disney PicturesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
  4. Baker v. CastaldiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  5. People v. DavisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API