<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" version="2.0">
 <channel>
  <title>The Oyez Project: Economic Activity Issues - Liability, Punitive Damages Arguments</title>
  <link>http://www.oyez.org/issues/economic-activity/liability-punitive-damages/</link>
  <description>U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org)</description>
  <language>en-us</language>
  <itunes:image>http://www.oyez.org/images/oyezfeed.jpg</itunes:image>
  <itunes:category text="Government &amp; Organizations"/>
      <itunes:subtitle>U.S. Supreme Court Audio Recordings, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org)</itunes:subtitle>
    
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Barnes v. Gorman - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2002 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Jeffrey Gorman is a paraplegic. After being arrested, he was transported to a Kansas City police station in a van that was not equipped to accommodate the disabled. Gorman was removed from his wheelchair and seatbelted to a bench in the van. During the ride, Gorman fell to the floor, suffering serious injuries that left him unable to work full time. Gorman sued certain Kansas police officials for discriminating against him on the basis of his disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, by failing to maintain appropriate policies for the arrest and transportation of persons with spinal cord injuries. A jury awarded him compensatory and punitive damages. The District Court vacated as to punitive damages, holding that they are unavailable in private suits brought under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. In reversing, the Court of Appeals found punitive damages available under a general rule that absent clear direction to the contrary by Congress federal courts have the power to award any appropriate relief for violation of a federal right.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;May punitive damages be awarded in a private cause of action brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>01-682_20020423-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_01_682/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_01_682/argument/01-682_20020423-argument.mp3" length="13612779" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>BMW v. Gore - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 1995 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;After purchasing a new vehicle from an authorized Alabama BMW dealership, Ira Gore, Jr. discovered that his new vehicle had been repainted. He sued BMW's American distributor (BMW), alleging that it committed fraud by failing to inform him that his car had been repainted. The Alabama Circuit Court entered judgment, following a jury verdict, awarding Gore $4,000 in compensatory damages and $4 million in punitive damages. On appeal from the trial judge's denial of BMW's post-trial petition to set aside the punitive damages as 'grossly excessive,' the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that the punitive damages were not so excessive as to violate BMW's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. Due to a jury calculation error, however, the Alabama Supreme Court reduced Gore's punitive damage award to $2 million. BMW appealed to the Supreme Court.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Assuming that Gore's punitive damage award was grossly excessive, does the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause protect BMW from paying the award?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>94-896_19951011-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_896/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_896/argument/94-896_19951011-argument.mp3" length="14024562" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Tue, 18 Apr 1989 10:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>No details yet.</description>
        <itunes:summary>No details yet.</itunes:summary>
        <guid>88-556_19890418-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_88_556/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_88_556/argument/88-556_19890418-argument.mp3" length="13625987" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Cooper Industries v. Leatherman Tool Grp. - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., manufactures a multifunction pocket tool, the Pocket Survival Tool (PST). In 1996, Cooper Industries, Inc. used photographs of a modified PST to introduce a competing tool, the ToolZall. The photographs were used in posters, packaging, and advertising materials. Subsequently, Leatherman filed an action asserting claims of trade-dress infringement, unfair competition, and false advertising under the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act). Ultimately, a trial jury awarded Leatherman $50,000 in compensatory damages and $4.5 million in punitive damages. The District Court then entered judgment, rejecting Cooper's argument that the punitive damages were grossly excessive. In affirming, the Court of Appeals, using an "abuse of discretion" standard, concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce the award.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Did the Court of Appeals review the constitutionality of the punitive damages award against Cooper Industries, Inc. under the correct standard?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>99-2035_20010226-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_2035/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_2035/argument/99-2035_20010226-argument.mp3" length="13669297" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Honda v. Oberg - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 1994 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Karl Oberg was driving an all-terrain vehicle when it overturned, causing him severe, permanent injuries. The jury in his trial assessed almost $1 million in compensatory damages, and an additional $5 million in punitive damages. A 1910 amendment to the Oregon state constitution prohibited judicial review of jury awards.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Does the Oregon prohibition on judicial review of jury awards violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>93-644_19940420-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_644/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_644/argument/93-644_19940420-argument.mp3" length="13882977" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Haslip - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 1990 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>No details yet.</description>
        <itunes:summary>No details yet.</itunes:summary>
        <guid>89-1279_19901003-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1990/1990_89_1279/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1990/1990_89_1279/argument/89-1279_19901003-argument.mp3" length="14053812" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v. Campbell - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Wed, 11 Dec 2002 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Although investigators concluded that Curtis Campbell caused an accident in which one person was killed and another permanently disabled, his insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, contested liability and took the case to trial. State Farm assured the Campbells that they would represent their interests. After losing in court, the Campbells sued State Farm for bad faith, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In the first part of the trial, the jury found State Farm's decision not to settle unreasonable. In the second part, the trial court denied State Farm's renewed motion to exclude dissimilar out-of-state conduct evidence, ruling such evidence was admissible to determine whether State Farm's conduct in the Campbell case was indeed intentional and sufficiently egregious to warrant punitive damages. The jury awarded the Campbells $2.6 million in compensatory damages and $145 million in punitive damages, which the trial court reduced to $1 million and $25 million respectively. The Utah Supreme Court reinstated the $145 million punitive damages award.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Is an award of $145 million in punitive damages, when full compensatory damages are $1 million, excessive and in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>01-1289_20021211-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_01_1289/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_01_1289/argument/01-1289_20021211-argument.mp3" length="15214055" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Txo Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp. - Oral Argument</title>
        <pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 1993 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>No details yet.</description>
        <itunes:summary>No details yet.</itunes:summary>
        <guid>92-479_19930331-argument</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_479/argument/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_479/argument/92-479_19930331-argument.mp3" length="13646547" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
 </channel>
</rss>
