Legal Opinion
Baker v. Exxon Mobile Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided December 22, 2006No. 04-35182, 04-35183PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM Opinion; Dissent by Judge BROWNING.
2Per curiam
I. INTRODUCTION
We look for the third time at the punitive damages imposed in this litigation as a result of the 1989 grounding of the oil tanker Exxon Valdez, and the resulting economic harm to many who earned their livelihood from the resources of that area. See Baker v. Hazelwood (In re the Exxon Valdez), 270 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir.2001)[hereinafter Punitive Damages Opinion I]; Sea Hawk Seafoods, Inc. v. Exxon Corp., No. 03-35166 (9th Cir., Aug. 18, 2003). We are precluded, as the jury was, from punishing Exxon for befouling the beautiful region…
3Cases cited30 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- 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
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by2 opinions
- In Re: The Exxon Valdez, Grant Baker Sea Hawk Seafoods, Inc. Cook Inlet Processors, Inc. Sagaya Corp. William McMurren Patrick L. McMurren William W. King George C. Norris Hunter Cranz No. 04-35182 Richard Feenstra Wilderness Sailing Safaris Seafood Sales, Inc. Rapid Systems Pacific Ltd. Nautilus Marine Enterprises, Inc. William Findlay Abbott, Jr. v. Exxon Mobile Corp Exxon Shipping Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
- Boggs v. City of ClevelandDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2021