LawyersUSA

Wider impact for punitive damages ruling?

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to drastically slash a punitive damages award against Exxon over the 1989 Valdez oil spill from $2.5 billion to $500 million has lawyers debating whether the ruling will have an impact on punitive damage awards beyond maritime cases.

Some attorneys say the case has widespread implications.

Supreme Court wraps up a diverse year

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recently concluded term was marked by a number of significant cases that boosted the rights of criminal defendants, gave employees greater options for seeking redress, buoyed businesses and made federal preemption the presumptive law of the land.

Criminal defense bar hails Confrontation Clause ruling

Defense attorneys declared victory in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last week that a murder defendant does not forfeit his right to keep the victim’s prior testimonial statements out of evidence unless the defendant killed the victim to prevent trial testimony.

Death penalty for child rape found unconstitutional

A state law authorizing the death penalty for raping a child under the age of 12 violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment where death was not an intended or actual result of the crime, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.

The defendant was sentenced to death under Louisiana law for raping his eight-year-old stepdaughter, but the court ruled that the death penalty for rape is "grossly disproportionate" and "excessive."

Supreme Court slashes punitive damages in Exxon case

Punitive damages under maritime common law should be limited to the amount of compensatory damages, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a 5-3 decision slashing a punitive award against Exxon for its notorious 1989 Valdez oil spill.

The Court said that the appropriate punitive award was $507 million.

Does passenger pat-down violate 'Terry'?

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to answer the question of whether an officer can conduct a pat-down search of a passenger when he believes the passenger might be armed and dangerous, even if he has no reasonable grounds to believe he is committing or has committed a criminal offense.