Topic: perhaps the most important indicium of the reasonableness o… · Go Syfert
← All topics

Topic #472

9 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 429 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore.

#Case FlagCanonical passage Citers
1 BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore Anchor
scotus · 1996
green “perhaps the most important indicium of the reasonableness of a punitive damages award is the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct.” 88
2 State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Campbell
scotus · 2003
green “few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, to a significant degree, will satisfy due process.” 73
3 State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Campbell
scotus · 2003
green “(1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's misconduct; (2) the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award; and (3) the difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties auth…” 71
4 State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Campbell
scotus · 2003
green “when compensatory damages are substantial, then a lesser ratio, perhaps only equal to compensatory damages, can reach the outermost limit of the due process guarantee.” 67
5 BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore
scotus · 1996
green “elementary notions of fairness enshrined in our constitutional jurisprudence dictate that a person receive fair notice not only of the conduct that will subject him to punishment, but also of the severity of the penalty that a state may impose.” 51
6 BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore
scotus · 1996
green “the most important indicium of the reasonableness of a punitive damages award is the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct.” 45
7 Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. Haslip
scotus · 1991
green “cross the line into the area of constitutional impropriety.” 14
8 TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp.
scotus · 1993
green “it is appropriate to consider the magnitude of the potential harm that the defendant's conduct would have caused to its intended victim if the wrongful plan had succeeded, as well as the possible harm to other victims that might have resulted if similar future behavior were not …” 13
9 Green Oil Co. v. Hornsby
ala · 1989
green “the duration of this conduct, the degree of the defendant's awareness of any hazard which his conduct has caused or is likely to cause, and any concealment or” 7

A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.

← Caselaw search · Hot / Trending / Newly red · Brief Check