Search for: "Deter v. Deter"
Results 5221 - 5240
of 5,291
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Mar 2007, 5:40 pm
This sense of principle is illustrated by Ronald Dworkin's example of the principle that no one should be allowed to profit from their own wrong, drawn from the case of Riggs v. [read post]
4 Mar 2007, 4:45 am
In Mason v. [read post]
3 Mar 2007, 9:05 pm
- By: Annie KaszinaIn March 2006, there was renewed concern about the patent system, manifested not only in discussion of the NTP v. [read post]
2 Mar 2007, 9:16 am
In this article, I explore the court's "state of mind" in the post-post-Enron era through the lens of a particular case, VantagePoint Venture Partners 1996 v. [read post]
1 Mar 2007, 2:43 pm
Stroud v. [read post]
1 Mar 2007, 2:23 pm
In his dissent in Lawrence v. [read post]
1 Mar 2007, 11:03 am
Including but not limited to the imposition of large punitive damages in order to deter similar types of misconduct in the future.Under Justice Benke's maximum 1:1 ratio, a defendant should -- and will -- have a rational economic incentive to steal $5 million whenever the probability of getting caught is less than 33%. [read post]
28 Feb 2007, 5:55 pm
Katz v. [read post]
27 Feb 2007, 2:45 am
In his excitement to blog all things bright and beautiful last week, the IPKat overlooked Microsoft Corporation v P4 Com Ltd and another, a Chancery Division decision of Mr Justice Rimer last Wednesday. [read post]
24 Feb 2007, 11:48 pm
We impinge on autonomy by paternalistically taxing cigarettes to deter smoking. [read post]
23 Feb 2007, 3:25 pm
Sure, the law deters such contracts by refusing to enforce them. [read post]
22 Feb 2007, 8:36 pm
The dust-up concerns Gaddis v. [read post]
21 Feb 2007, 6:00 am
Gorman opposed the petition by arguing that "under Badie v. [read post]
20 Feb 2007, 1:40 pm
Here's a teaser for my next post on this case: today's decision should push the Court to reconsider its decision in Williams v. [read post]
20 Feb 2007, 8:53 am
(The case is Phillip Morris v. [read post]
20 Feb 2007, 5:05 am
(a) While "[p]unitive damages may properly be imposed to further a State's legitimate interests in punishing unlawful conduct and deterring its repetition," BMW of North America, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Feb 2007, 2:53 am
The case was decided 5-4.That part of the decision avoiding the issue of "excessive damages" was not unexpected, as I wrote a few months ago (US Supreme Court Hears Punitive Damages Case, Again), as the justices fretted over the jury instructions.The Oregon case, Philip Morris v. [read post]
19 Feb 2007, 9:36 am
They are meant to punish and deter defendants who engage in extraordinary wrongdoing. [read post]
15 Feb 2007, 5:36 am
Via AILA Haoua v. [read post]
13 Feb 2007, 5:25 am
For a copy of the Supreme Court's decision in Stuyvesant Town-Peter Cooper Village Tenant's Association v. [read post]
