Cases pin-citing Browning-Ferris · Go Syfert
Search » Famous passages » Cases pin-citing Browning-Ferris

Cases pin-citing Browning-Ferris

Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc.  ·  1989  ·  64 pinpoint citations from 21 cases, 18 distinct passages.

Timbs v. Indiana  ·  2019-02-20  ·  Supreme Court  ·  pin 109 S. Ct. at 2909
"[N]o man shall have a larger amercement imposed upon him, than his circumstances or personal estate will bear ...."
Tamarin Lindenberg v. Jackson Nat'l Life Ins. Co.  ·  2018-12-21  ·  Sixth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 219
"Damages are designed not only as a satisfaction to the injured person, but likewise as punishment to the guilty, to deter from any such proceeding for the future and as a proof of the detestation of the jury to the action itself."
Holland v. Rosen  ·  2017-09-21  ·  D. New Jersey  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 219
“We think it clear ... that the Eighth Amendment places limits on the steps a government may take against an individual, whether it be keeping him in prison, imposing excessive monetaiy sanctions, or using cruel and unusual punishments”
Buchwald v. Renco Group  ·  2015-08-19  ·  S.D. New York  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 219
“In a diversity action, or in any other lawsuit where state law provides the basis of decision, the propriety of an award of punitive damages for the conduct in question, and the factors the jury may consider in determining their amount, are questions of state law.”
Tincher, T. v. Omega Flex, Inc., Aplt.  ·  2014-11-19  ·  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania  ·  4 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 219
“Damages are designed not only as a satisfaction to the injured person, but likewise as punishment to the guilty, to deter from any such proceeding for the future and as a proof of the detestation of the jury to the action itself.”
Koch v. Greenberg  ·  2014-03-31  ·  S.D. New York  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 219
“In a diversity action, ... the propriety of an award of punitive damages for the conduct in question ... [is a] question[ ] of state law.”
Payne v. Jones  ·  2013-02-15  ·  Second Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 219
“In reviewing an award of punitive damages ... [a] court of appeals should ... review the district court’s determination under an abuse-of-discretion standard.”
Pasco v. Protus IP Solutions, Inc.  ·  2011-11-23  ·  D. Maryland  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 219
“fine” means “payment to a sovereign as punishment for some offense”
Reyes v. North Texas Tollway Authority  ·  2011-11-14  ·  N.D. Texas  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 219
“We shall not decide whether the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines applies to the several States through the Fourteenth Amendment[.]”
Massachusetts v. Schering-Plough Corp.  ·  2011-04-27  ·  D. Massachusetts  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 219
“[T]he First Congress ... did not discuss what was meant by the term ‘fines,’ or whether the prohibition had any application in the civil context.... Then, as now, fines were assessed in criminal, rather than in private civil, actions.”
Izzarelli v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.  ·  2010-12-21  ·  D. Connecticut  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 219
“In a diversity action ... the factors the [fact-finder] may consider in determining [the punitive damages] amount, are questions of state law.”
Fab-Tech, Inc. v. Nemours  ·  2009-02-23  ·  Second Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 219
“[T]he role of the district court is to determine whether the jury’s verdict is within the confines set by state law .... The court of appeals should then review the district court’s determination under an abuse-of-discretion standard.”
Fab-Tech, Inc. v. Nemours  ·  2009-02-23  ·  Second Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 219
“[T]he role of the district court is to determine whether the jury’s verdict is within the confines set by state law .... The court of appeals should then review the district court’s determination under an abuse-of-discretion standard.”
We People Foundation, Inc. v. United States  ·  2007-05-08  ·  D.C. Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 219
"Despite this recognition of civil exemplary damages as punitive in nature, the Eighth Amendment did not expressly include it within its scope."
Campbell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.  ·  2004-04-23  ·  Utah Supreme Court  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 219
"[Thhe propriety of an award of punitive damages for the conduct in question, and the factors the jury may consider in determining their amount, are questions of state law."
Clausen v. M/V New Carissa  ·  2003-08-12  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 219
“In a diversity action, or in any' other lawsuit where state law provides the basis of decision, the propriety of an award of ... damages for the conduct in question ... [is a] question! ] of state law.”
Jemison v. National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.  ·  1998-11-05  ·  District of Columbia Court of Appeals  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 219
"[a]wards of punitive damages do not implicate [Eighth Amendment] concerns"
Pueblo School District No. 70 v. Toth  ·  1996-05-02  ·  Colorado Court of Appeals  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 219
“We shall not decide whether the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines applies to the several states through the Fourteenth Amendment, nor shall we decide whether the Eighth Amendment protects corporations as well as individuals.”
Czajka v. Black  ·  1990-05-02  ·  Eighth Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 106 L. Ed. 2d at 219
“We have never held expressly that the Seventh Amendment allows appellate review of a district court’s denial of a motion to set aside an award as excessive.”
Page 1 of 2   Next →