Search for: "Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker" Results 41 - 60 of 65
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Jun 2008, 2:52 am
Board of Trade, No. 06-1265; a post on Exxon Shipping Co. v. [read post]
21 Sep 2012, 4:22 pm by J. Wylie Donald
National Sea Clammers Ass’n., 453 U.S. 1, 4 (1981), and Exxon Shipping Co. v. [read post]
24 Jun 2008, 7:05 pm
Heller and Exxon Shipping Co. v. [read post]
25 Oct 2017, 2:33 pm by Lauren Bridges
Co., No. 2016-C-1647, p. 31 (La. 10/18/17), ___ So. 3d ___. [5]              Exxon Shipping Co. v. [read post]
25 Oct 2017, 2:33 pm by Lauren Bridges
Co., No. 2016-C-1647, p. 31 (La. 10/18/17), ___ So. 3d ___. [5]              Exxon Shipping Co. v. [read post]
18 Aug 2011, 5:00 am by Bexis
Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008), sounding in maritime law and arising out of the infamous Exxon Valdez tanker accident.  [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 6:19 am by James Bickford
Several senators are considering legislation that would overturn the 1:1 ratio of punitive to compensatory damages established in Exxon Shipping Co. v. [read post]
28 May 2009, 11:00 am
  Interestingly, the Tennessee court chose not to acknowledge the Supreme Court’s most recent punitive damage decision from Exxon Shipping Co. v. [read post]
25 Jun 2008, 5:51 pm
It is necessary, in examining what the Court has done in Exxon Shipping Co. v. [read post]
30 Dec 2008, 10:36 am
 In addition, while the Supreme Court has declined to explicitly set a 1:1 ratio as a constitutional limit, it has employed that ratio in Exxon Shipping Co. v. [read post]
27 Jul 2008, 3:27 pm
Williams, we posted that the writing was clearly on the wall to the effect that punitive damages had "peaked out" in American law.That conclusion was strongly supported in the US Supreme Court's recent decision in the Exxon Valdez punitive damages case, Exxon Shipping Co. v. [read post]