This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc.: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|subject=Civil Procedure | |subject=Civil Procedure | ||
}} | }} | ||
''' | '''Facts''' | ||
Journalist lent slides to an organization, and they lost them. Judgment for $450,000 in damages. State law said on appeal the damage calculation should be rejected if unreasonable. Contrary federal rule says you only overturn a jury verdict if it shocks the conscience of the court. | |||
'''Issues''' | '''Issues''' | ||
Dispute as to the rules applied to calculation of damages. | |||
'''Holding/Decision''' | '''Holding/Decision''' | ||
Using the outcome determinative test of “bad” Hanna, the court concludes that this would encourage forum shopping and unfairly administer laws. | |||
'''Rules''' | '''Rules''' | ||
Limiting the amount of money a defendant walks out of court with is substantive, but the part about how a court reviews is procedural. | Limiting the amount of money a defendant walks out of court with is substantive, but the part about how a court reviews is procedural. |
Revision as of 18:37, March 7, 2020
Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc. | |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
---|---|
Citation | 518 U.S. 414 (1996) |
Date decided | 1996 |
Facts
Journalist lent slides to an organization, and they lost them. Judgment for $450,000 in damages. State law said on appeal the damage calculation should be rejected if unreasonable. Contrary federal rule says you only overturn a jury verdict if it shocks the conscience of the court.
Issues
Dispute as to the rules applied to calculation of damages.
Holding/Decision
Using the outcome determinative test of “bad” Hanna, the court concludes that this would encourage forum shopping and unfairly administer laws.
Rules
Limiting the amount of money a defendant walks out of court with is substantive, but the part about how a court reviews is procedural.