At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. To warrant the award, the claimant must show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognised at law, the loss must involve damage to property, or mental or physical injury; pure economic loss is rarely recognised for the award of damages.
Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.
Punitive damages, or exemplary damages, are damages assessed in order to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct and/or to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive all or some of the punitive damages in award.
Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Ahlborn, 547 U.S. 268 (2006), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the ability of a state agency to claim a personal injury settlement as compensation for Medicaid benefits provided for treatment of the injuries. The Court ruled unanimously that a federal statutory prohibition against liens on personal property to recover Medicaid expenditures applied to settlements, so that only the portion of the settlement that represented payment for past medical expenses could be claimed by the state.
In United States law, remittitur is a ruling by a judge lowering the amount of damages granted by a jury in a civil case. The term is sometimes used where a judgment exceeds the amount demanded by the prevailing party, or for a reduction in awarded damages even when the amount awarded did not exceed the amount demanded but is otherwise considered excessive. The term originally denoted a procedural device in English common law, although it has long fallen into disuse in England and other common law jurisdictions, and it has evolved in American use to serve a different function than it originally performed in England.
Marrita Murphy and Daniel J. Leveille, Appellants v. Internal Revenue Service and United States of America, Appellees, is a tax case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit originally held that the taxation of emotional distress awards by the federal government is unconstitutional. That decision was vacated, or rendered void, by the Court on December 22, 2006. The Court eventually overturned its original decision, finding against Murphy in an opinion issued on July 3, 2007.
Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 549 U.S. 346 (2007), 556 U.S. 178 (2009), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits punitive damages, and ordered a lower court to reconsider its damages awards on that basis.
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court ruled in a 5-3 decision that the punitive damages awarded to the victims of the Exxon Valdez oil spill should be reduced from $2.5 billion to $500 million.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the due process clause usually limits punitive damage awards to less than ten times the size of the compensatory damages awarded and that punitive damage awards of four times the compensatory damage award is "close to the line of constitutional impropriety".
The Court of Appeal of Alberta is a Canadian appellate court that serves as the highest appelate court in the jurisdiction of Alberta, subordinate to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Cinar Corp v Robinson is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada in the field of copyright law, which has impact in many key aspects of it, including:
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. is the caption of several United States Supreme Court patent–related decisions, the most significant of which is a 1969 patent–antitrust and patent–misuse decision concerning the levying of patent royalties on unpatented products.
Ron Cummings is a Canadian retired litigator who was a major figure in Canadian law. He argued two of three cases before the Supreme Court of Canada that would eventually be considered a case law trilogy of personal injury cases for Canada. He also negotiated or litigated some of the largest personal injury awards in Canadian history.
In Canada, judicial review is the process that allows courts to supervise administrative tribunals' exercise of their statutory powers. Judicial review of administrative action is only available for decisions made by a governmental or quasi-governmental authority. The process allows individuals to challenge state actions, and ensures that decisions made by administrative tribunals follow the rule of law. The practice is meant to ensure that powers delegated by government to boards and tribunals are not abused, and offers legal recourse when that power is misused, or the law is misapplied. Judicial review is meant to be a last resort for those seeking to redress a decision of an administrative decision maker.
Samuel Sereth Lieberman was a Canadian judge. Lieberman was the first Jewish judge in the province of Alberta. He was inducted into the Alberta Order of Excellence in 2006.
Kuipers v Gordon Riley Transport, 1 C.C.L.T. 233 (1976) was a Canadian personal injury case involving negligence, standard of care, causation, and hindsight.
Roderick Phillip Wacowich is a former Canadian Master in Chambers in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta.
Madden v Nelson and Fort Sheppard Railway Co. is a Canadian constitutional law decision, dealing with the application of provincial laws to federally regulated railways. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the highest appellate body in the British Empire, held that the provinces could not impose higher safety standards on federally regulated railways than were set out in federal law.
Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with non-verbal free speech and its protections under the First Amendment. The Court, in a per curiam decision, ruled that a Washington state law that banned the display of the American flag adorned with additional decorations was unconstitutional as it violated protected speech. The case established the Spence test that has been used by the judicial system to determine when non-verbal speech may be sufficiently expressive for First Amendment protections.
TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., 509 U.S. 443 (1993), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which upheld the decision of the West Virginia state court awarding $19,000 in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages to the plaintiff. Although multiple justices recognized that the punitive damages were 526 times the compensatory damages, the Court held a "general concern of reasonableness" should guide courts in determining constitutionally acceptable damages under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
