Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc.: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=U.S. Supreme Court |citation=518 U.S. 414 (1996) |date=1996 |subject=Civil Procedure }} '''Relevant Facts'''Journalist lent slides to an orga...") |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|subject=Civil Procedure | |subject=Civil Procedure | ||
}} | }} | ||
'''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. | |||
''' | '''Issues''' | ||
Dispute as to the rules applied to calculation of damages. | |||
'''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. | '''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. | |||
'''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. | |||
Latest revision as of 18:39, March 7, 2020
| Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc. | |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
|---|---|
| Citation | 518 U.S. 414 (1996) |
| Date decided | 1996 |
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.
Issues
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.
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.
