Editing Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc.
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|subject=Civil Procedure | |subject=Civil Procedure | ||
}} | }} | ||
'''Facts''' | '''Relevant Facts''' | ||
Journalist lent slides to an organization, and they lost them. Judgment for $450,000 in damages. State law said on appeal the damage calculation should be rejected if unreasonable. Contrary federal rule says you only overturn a jury verdict if it shocks the conscience of the court. | Journalist lent slides to an organization, and they lost them. Judgment for $450,000 in damages. State law said on appeal the damage calculation should be rejected if unreasonable. Contrary federal rule says you only overturn a jury verdict if it shocks the conscience of the court. | ||
'''Issues''' | |||
Dispute as to the rules applied to calculation of damages. | Dispute as to the rules applied to calculation of damages. | ||
'''Holding/Decision''' | |||
Using the outcome determinative test of “bad” [[Hanna v. Plumer]], the court concludes that this would encourage forum shopping and unfairly administer laws. | Using the outcome determinative test of “bad” [[Hanna v. Plumer]], the court concludes that this would encourage forum shopping and unfairly administer laws. | ||
'''Rules''' | |||
Limiting the amount of money a defendant walks out of court with is substantive, but the part about how a court reviews is procedural. | Limiting the amount of money a defendant walks out of court with is substantive, but the part about how a court reviews is procedural. | ||
