Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Damage caps have various purposes; for instance, they can discourage malicious lawsuits and prevent the costs of transacting business from being overly inflated, but have also been criticized as unjust. [20] Many American jurisdictions with non-economic damage caps have defined non-economic damages by statute.
In many states, including California and Texas, punitive damages are determined based on statute; elsewhere, they may be determined solely based on case law. Many state statutes are the result of insurance industry lobbying to impose "caps" on punitive damages; however, several state courts have struck down these statutory caps as ...
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the due process clause usually limits punitive damage awards to less than ten times the size of the compensatory damages awarded and that punitive damage awards of four times the compensatory damage award is "close to the line of constitutional impropriety".
Inverse condemnation is a legal concept and cause of action used by property owners when a governmental entity takes an action which damages or decreases the value of private property without obtaining ownership of the property through the use of eminent domain. Thus, unlike the typical eminent domain case, the property owner is the plaintiff ...
In the United States, statutory damages are set at a minimum of $750 per work, to a maximum of $150,000. [6] In Europe, directive 2004/48/EC on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights bases the damages on, "the amount of royalties which would have been due if the infringer has requested authorisation". [5]
Colorado did not hold a jury trial to determine if Trump was an insurrectionist, nor provide the evidence to be used against him. Colorado did not adhere to stringent rules of evidence or procedures.
Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441 (1915), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that due process protections attach only to administrative activities in which a small number of people are concerned, who are exceptionally affected by the act, in each case upon individual grounds.
Colorado was the first State to implement a gambling intercept payment system in 2008. Several other states have followed Colorado's lead and used our system as a model for their intercept programs.