Legal Opinion
In Re Exxon Valdez
District Court, D. Alaska
Decided December 9, 2002No. A89-0095-CV (HRH)PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER No. 358
HOLLAND, District Judge.
Renewed Motion for Reduction of Punitive Damages Award
Defendants Exxon Mobil Corporation (D-1) and Exxon Shipping Company (D-2), hereinafter referred to as “Exxon”, have filed a renewed motion for reduction or remittitur of the punitive damages award entered against them. 1 The motion is opposed by the plaintiffs. 2 Exxon has replied. 3 Various affidavits in support of and in opposition to the motion as well as the underlying record have been considered by the court, and oral argument has been requested and heard.
Facts
Terrible things have happened in…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- BMW of North America, Inc. v. GoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. HaslipSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2001
- TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Exxon Shipping Co. v. BakerSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
- Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2011
- 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
- In Re the Exxon ValdezDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 2004
- In re Exxon ValdezCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.