Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Hedonic damages is a legal term that first emerged in 1985 in the research of Stan V. Smith, who was a PhD student in economics at the University of Chicago. The term refers to damages for loss of enjoyment of life, the intangible value of life, as distinct from the human capital value or lost earnings value.
Stan V. Smith is an American economist credited with coining the term and creating the arguments behind the hedonic damages theory, which entered mainstream legal economics in the 1985 court case Sherrod v. Berry. [1] He often presents, publishes, and speaks on economics. [2]
Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779 (2024), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States case in which the court held that when an expert conveys an absent analyst's statements in support of the expert's opinion, and the statements provide that support only if true, then the statements come into evidence for their truth.
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno: 2006: Held that state taxpayers do not have standing to challenge to state tax laws in federal court. 9–0 Massachusetts v. EPA: 2007: States have standing to sue the EPA to enforce their views of federal law, in this case, the view that carbon dioxide was an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Cited Georgia v.
R v Smith, [1992] 2 SCR 915 is a leading decision on hearsay by the Supreme Court of Canada.This decision, along with R v Khan (1990), began what is called the "hearsay revolution", supplementing the traditional categorical approach to hearsay exceptions with a new "principled approach" based on reliability and necessity of testimony.
Smith v. United States , 568 U.S. 106 (2013), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States of America . [ 1 ] The case was argued on November 6, 2012, and decided on January 9, 2013.
Sunday night was the season eight premiere of "The Millionaire Matchmaker," and Patti Stanger took on a client who may be living a little too much in the past.
Smith v. Texas, 550 U.S. 297 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case about a challenge to a Texas death penalty court procedure. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion of the Court, holding 5-4 that the Texas procedure was improper.