<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Punitive damages and the Supreme Court	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/10/punitive-damages-and-the-supreme-court/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/10/punitive-damages-and-the-supreme-court/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:45:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Dennis Morris		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/10/punitive-damages-and-the-supreme-court/comment-page-1/#comment-4577</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dennis Morris]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Nov 2006 10:51:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4109#comment-4577</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[So you are saying that: If the only punishment for a particular crime is a fine then  the constitutional burden of proof could be less than Beyond reasonable doubt?
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So you are saying that: If the only punishment for a particular crime is a fine then  the constitutional burden of proof could be less than Beyond reasonable doubt?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Ima Fish		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/10/punitive-damages-and-the-supreme-court/comment-page-1/#comment-4576</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ima Fish]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Oct 2006 08:36:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4109#comment-4576</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;em&gt;&quot;Punitive damages are punitive and hence criminal in nature&quot;&lt;/em&gt;

Punitive damages obtained in a civil case are not criminal in anyway.  They are not brought by a prosecutor.  The defendant does not have a right to a court appointed attorney.  A sentence is never given.  And, most importantly, incarceration is never imposed.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>&#8220;Punitive damages are punitive and hence criminal in nature&#8221;</em></p>
<p>Punitive damages obtained in a civil case are not criminal in anyway.  They are not brought by a prosecutor.  The defendant does not have a right to a court appointed attorney.  A sentence is never given.  And, most importantly, incarceration is never imposed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: yclipse		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/10/punitive-damages-and-the-supreme-court/comment-page-1/#comment-4575</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[yclipse]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:07:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4109#comment-4575</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Morrison is a true-blue Nader Raider, but here he seems to adopt a near-Borkean approach to the authority of the Supreme Court over this issue:

&lt;ul&gt;The Court in State Farm focused on the need for some proportionality between compensatory damages and the amount of punitives, with the Court suggesting that, except where actual damages are very low, or in very unusual circumstances, a ratio beyond 9:1 would be excessive. If a legislature did that, we could argue abut the numbers, but not the approach, but when did the Supreme Court receive legislative powers? There are numbers in the Constitution when bright lines are useful – ages for voting or holding certain office, the amount in controversy for which jury trials must be maintained, and the terms for federal officeholders – yet there is nothing about magic numbers for punitive damages, let alone that the Supreme Court has the right to decide them.&lt;/ul&gt;
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Morrison is a true-blue Nader Raider, but here he seems to adopt a near-Borkean approach to the authority of the Supreme Court over this issue:</p>
<ul>The Court in State Farm focused on the need for some proportionality between compensatory damages and the amount of punitives, with the Court suggesting that, except where actual damages are very low, or in very unusual circumstances, a ratio beyond 9:1 would be excessive. If a legislature did that, we could argue abut the numbers, but not the approach, but when did the Supreme Court receive legislative powers? There are numbers in the Constitution when bright lines are useful – ages for voting or holding certain office, the amount in controversy for which jury trials must be maintained, and the terms for federal officeholders – yet there is nothing about magic numbers for punitive damages, let alone that the Supreme Court has the right to decide them.</ul>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Dennis Morris		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/10/punitive-damages-and-the-supreme-court/comment-page-1/#comment-4574</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dennis Morris]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:32:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4109#comment-4574</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Punitive damages are punitive and hence criminal in nature- Should safeguards such as the criminal burden of proof be constitutionally required?
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Punitive damages are punitive and hence criminal in nature- Should safeguards such as the criminal burden of proof be constitutionally required?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
