Printer Friendly
The Free Library
14,702,589 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

Supreme Court: punitive damage awards upheld.


For the second time in two years, the Years, The

the seven decades of Eleanor Pargiter’s life. [Br. Lit.: Benét, 1109]

See : Time
 U.S. Supreme Court upheld a large punitive damage award. In reviewing a case in which punitive damages Monetary compensation awarded to an injured party that goes beyond that which is necessary to compensate the individual for losses and that is intended to punish the wrongdoer.  were 526 times the amount of compensatory damages A sum of money awarded in a civil action by a court to indemnify a person for the particular loss, detriment, or injury suffered as a result of the unlawful conduct of another. , the Court rejected arguments that such awards violated the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The Court stressed a punitive award's reasonableness should be considered in determining whether it violated the due process clause. Factors to consider include the amount of money potentially at stake, the bad faith of the party against which the award was assessed and that party's wealth.

Professionals (including CPAs) and business groups had hoped the Court would take this opportunity to establish objective guidelines guidelines,
n.pl a set of standards, criteria, or specifications to be used or followed in the performance of certain tasks.
 to determine whether huge punitive awards are constitutionally permissible. But in its ruling, the Court dashed any hope lower courts would have such guidance.

Barring intervention by states on a statutory level, it is likely professionals will continue to see punitive damage awards that are grossly dissproportionate to the compensatory damages awarded a plaintiff. (TXO TXO Taxi Orange (Austrian reality TV show)  Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., U.S. Sup. Ct. no 92-479)
COPYRIGHT 1993 American Institute of CPA's
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1993, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp.
Publication:Journal of Accountancy
Article Type:Brief Article
Date:Nov 1, 1993
Words:182
Previous Article:GASB issues three new statements and sea proposal. (Governmental Accounting Standards Board)
Next Article:Supreme Court: defendants may seek contribution in securities rule 10b-5 cases. (Brief Article)
Topics:



Related Articles
U.S. Supreme Court upholds punitive damage award.
Supreme Court to reconsider punitive damages - again. (U.S. Supreme Court) (Oregon)
TXO and the future of punitive damages. (TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp.)
Supreme Court strikes down punitive award; judicial review required.
Punitive damages and the Constitution.
Supreme Court to revisit punitive damages issue.
Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds Steven Sharp verdict.
Winning increased punitive awards after Cooper: Tort restrictionists may hail this Supreme Court decision as a victory, but in some cases it could...
High court caps awards; insurers likely to benefit.(Briefing)
High court rules on punitive damages.(Top News Stories)

Terms of use | Copyright © 2009 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters | Submit articles