Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Dorothy Clark v. Chrysler Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided February 1, 2006No. 04-5279Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMoore, Circuit Judge
I join the majority’s waiver and new-trial holdings. I write separately, however, because I believe that the punitive damages award was not excessive under the Due Process Clause and therefore should be sustained in full.
“Punitive damages may properly be imposed to further a State’s legitimate interests in punishing unlawful conduct and deterring its repetition.” BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 568, 116 S.Ct. 1589, 134 L.Ed.2d 809 (1996); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 416, 123 S.Ct. 1513, 155 L.Ed.2d 585 (2003); Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co.…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- BMW of North America, Inc. v. GoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. CampbellSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. HaslipSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.