Legal Opinion
Man v. Raymark Industries
District Court, D. Hawaii
Decided November 21, 1989No. 87-14524, 87-14470PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER RE: PUNITIVE DAMAGES
CONTI, District Judge.
The plaintiffs in these cases seek compensatory and punitive damages for injuries allegedly caused by exposure to defendants’ asbestos-containing insulation products. The matter is now before the court on defendant Celotex Corporation and defendant Carey Canada, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ punitive damage claims.
Defendants assert two theories in support of their motion: (1) Punitive damages are violative of the Due Process clause of the Constitution and therefore may not be allowed as a matter of law; and (2) Punitive…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Smith v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- United States v. HalperSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. GolightlyKentucky Supreme Court · 1998
- Dunn v. HOVICCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
- Spaur v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1994
- City of Richmond v. Madison Management Group, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1990
- Davis v. Celotex Corp.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1992
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.