州立农场案后的判决在确定惩罚性赔偿与补偿性赔偿的宪法允许比例时考虑了比较过失

Q4 Social Sciences International Journal of Private Law Pub Date : 2013-01-01 DOI:10.1504/IJPL.2013.050524
William E. Marple
{"title":"州立农场案后的判决在确定惩罚性赔偿与补偿性赔偿的宪法允许比例时考虑了比较过失","authors":"William E. Marple","doi":"10.1504/IJPL.2013.050524","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The US Supreme Court has established two important constitutional limits on punitive damages awards: they are subject to review for substantive reasonableness and the amount of the award may not be predicated on harm that a defendant caused to non-parties. These limits call into question the well-settled principle in most jurisdictions that comparative fault may not be used to reduce punitive damage awards.","PeriodicalId":39023,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Private Law","volume":"55 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Post State Farm decisions have considered comparative fault in determining the constitutionally permissible ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages\",\"authors\":\"William E. Marple\",\"doi\":\"10.1504/IJPL.2013.050524\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The US Supreme Court has established two important constitutional limits on punitive damages awards: they are subject to review for substantive reasonableness and the amount of the award may not be predicated on harm that a defendant caused to non-parties. These limits call into question the well-settled principle in most jurisdictions that comparative fault may not be used to reduce punitive damage awards.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39023,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Private Law\",\"volume\":\"55 1\",\"pages\":\"1\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Private Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPL.2013.050524\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Private Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPL.2013.050524","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

美国最高法院对惩罚性损害赔偿裁决确立了两个重要的宪法限制:它们必须接受实质性合理性的审查,以及裁决的金额不得以被告对非当事人造成的损害为依据。这些限制对大多数司法管辖区公认的原则提出了质疑,即比较过错不能用于减少惩罚性损害赔偿。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Post State Farm decisions have considered comparative fault in determining the constitutionally permissible ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages
The US Supreme Court has established two important constitutional limits on punitive damages awards: they are subject to review for substantive reasonableness and the amount of the award may not be predicated on harm that a defendant caused to non-parties. These limits call into question the well-settled principle in most jurisdictions that comparative fault may not be used to reduce punitive damage awards.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊最新文献
The evolution of the non-oral modification clause Legal regulation of migration policy in EU countries: current challenges The application of the concept of consideration to smart contracts on a blockchain. The propriety of mandatory arbitration in Nigeria vis-à-vis the doctrine of voluntariness: the imperativeness of charting a new course The evolution of the non-oral modification clause
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1