Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc.: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
'''Holding/Decision''' | '''Holding/Decision''' | ||
Using the outcome determinative test of “bad” Hanna, 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. | ||
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.
