Sentences with phrase «damages awards between»

Some personal injury lawyers have been tracking the significant discrepancy in damages awards between provinces.

In doing so Judge Kay addressed the discrepancy in non-pecuniary damage awards between the Provincial and Supreme Court.

Not exact matches

The firm would receive a cut of between 10 percent and 40 percent of any settlement agreement or awarded damages that may result from the lawsuit, depending on the stage at which the suit is resolved.

If you win, you may be awarded damages, plus twice the amount of any finance charge - as long as it's between $ 100 and $ 1,000.

If you win, you may be awarded damages, plus twice the amount of any finance charge as long as it's between $ 100 and $ 1,000.

If you win, you may be awarded damages, plus twice the amount of any finance charge — as long as it's between $ 500 and $ 5,000, or higher amounts if a pattern or practice of violations is established.

Although they fail to «draw a mathematical bright line between the constitutionally acceptable and the constitutionally unacceptable,» id., at 458; Has lip, 499 U. S., at 18, a majority of the Justices agreed that the Due Process Clause imposes a limit on punitive damages awards.

Cf. supra, at 444, n. 11 (between 1965 and the present, awards of punitive damages in Oregon have been reported in only two product liability cases, including this one).

WHEREAS, multiple punitive damages claims are a major obstacle to comprehensive settlement negotiations in repetitive litigation between plaintiffs and dependents; and WHEREAS, limiting multiple punitive damages awards...

The significant difference between the new «insurance» product and the older «indemnity» product is that it does not require a successful plaintiff to use any part of their damage award to pay costs before they can access the policy.

although the guidelines have been produced by an English working group, there is authority in Scotland that there should be no real difference between awards of damages for pain and suffering between England and Scotland.».

Between 1965 and the present, awards of punitive damages have been reported in only two product liability cases involving Oregon law, including this one.

There is a dramatic difference between the judicial review of punitive damages awards under the common law and the scope of review available in Oregon.

It is mainly because of the widening gap between damages awards and insurance limits that the issue is more common than a decade ago.

The distinction between fixed - term employment contracts and contracts of indefinite duration is an important one due to the great difference in the potential damage awards that are available to the employee in the event of possible litigation.

The difference in total damages between the time periods is therefore largely due to a difference in general damages awards.

In order to determine whether the large increase in damages awards is evident within the studied periods, or whether it occurred largely in between 1983 and 2003, I determined the annual average defamation award.

In the 2003 - 13 data, no significant difference was found between the frequency of aggravated damages awards to human (29 % of cases) versus corporate plaintiffs (28 % of cases).

The study has a number of interesting results: it demonstrates that the average non-pecuniary damages award has more than doubled between the two periods studied — even when adjusted for inflation.

Caution is warranted given the small number of cases in the 1973 - 83 data, but the data seem to suggest that it was much more common for courts to award aggravated damages in defamation cases between 2003 - 13 than between 1973 - 83.

It also shows that punitive damages were awarded in about a quarter of all defamation cases between 2003 - 13.

The average total damages award in the 2003 - 13 cases ($ 61,662) is more than double (2.2 times) what it was between 1973 - 83 ($ 27,464) when adjusted for inflation.

It noted that a trial judge's discretion is not unlimited, that there was no authority for awarding damages under the CSPA to class plaintiffs who had suffered no injury, and that the lower courts ignored the clear distinction in the CSPA between the kinds of damages available in an individual action and the actual damages available in a class action.

If a torfeasor's liability under material contribution is solidary, a P may sue only the T who is at fault and has money, and recover all of P's awarded damages, even though that T isn't the one «more» at fault as between the wrongdoers.

In accordance with the key principle of the Default Clause that damages are to be based on (but not limited to) the difference between the contract price and the actual or estimated value of the goods at the date of default, the Board of Appeal had awarded Buyers substantial damages.

There is now an even wider gulf between the damages which would be awarded under the government's proposed tariff scheme and those that are recommended to be awarded by a judge.

Generally, the factors that courts look at in awarding general damages for pain and suffering are the nature of the acts, the duration of the abuse, the relationship between the perpetrator and the plaintiff, including any breach of trust, the age and vulnerability of the plaintiff and the impact on the survivor's life, including education and career.

The final portion of this opinion that a three - judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued today contains an interesting discussion of the potential for overlap between a jury's award of damages for emotional distress and what a jury might have awarded had it been advised (as it should have been but was not at the original trial) that an award of punitive damages in favor of the plaintiff was appropriate.

The correct test where the claim has a real prospect of success is in three stages: to consider (i) whether the children had a seriously arguable case that they would succeed at trial in obtaining a proprietary interest in the property; and if so (ii) whether either or both parties would be adequately compensated by a damages award; and if not (iii) where the balance of convenience between the parties lies.

If you can get past all the legal challenges and be awarded punitive damages, in most circumstances, you're limited to an amount between $ 200,000 and $ 750,000, depending on the the actual «economic» damages determined by the jury.

Employers often find themselves at risk of a moral damage award because of unchecked animosity between the terminated employee and his or her manager.

The women were awarded between $ 5,000 and $ 20,000 as general damages for the breach of the Code for injury to dignity and self - worth.

The State Court study found that punitive damages were only awarded in 3 % of all tort cases but were awarded in 8 % of contract cases, which are much more likely to be between two businesses.

If you recover money damages, your personal injury lawyer will take a percentage of the award, typically between 25 percent (25 %) and 40 percent (40 %).

'» Relevant considerations include the «' reasonableness between the damages sustained and the amount of the award and the measurement of punishment required, whether the award will amount to double recovery, the proportionality between the compensatory and punitive damages, and the ability of the defendant to pay.

If victims claim punitive damages, the jury will consider factors including the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's actions, the disparity between the punitive award and the actual harm, and the amount of sanctions usually imposed for similar actions.

The court did find the double - digit ratio between Coalson's compensatory and punitive damages award to be somewhat high.

It quoted Campbell's guidelines: «(1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's misconduct; (2) the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award; and (3) the difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized in comparable cases.»

In 2015, the Plaintiffs were awarded damages of between $ 5,050 and $ 9,550 by Buncrana Circuit Court.

However, there is a large discrepancy that already exists between the levels of damages awarded for «bodily injury» and those awarded for «name calling».

• It should provide a speedy and cheap method to stop lawsuits if those suits were brought for an improper purpose, namely to harass or intimidate the defendants; • It should put the onus on plaintiffs to prove that their lawsuits were not improper; • It should help rebalance an inequality of financial resources between the parties, possibly by an order that the plaintiff should pay the defendants» costs at the outset of the litigation; • It should provide stronger legal protection for citizens engaged in public participation, such as through special defences; • It should deter people from bringing such suits in the first place, by exposing plaintiffs, and possibly their directors and officers, and lawyers, to awards of damages or even punitive damages.

The Court's reduction of the punitive damages award from $ 100,000 to $ 15,000 could be taken, without too much reading between the lines, as some indication that some members of the court were somewhat skeptical --(I'm bowing to the spelling checker and not typing «sceptical», regardless of the homononym) of the merits of the claim that plaintiff was, in fact, misled.

The personal injury bar's argument against limiting noneconomic damages — that a jury's award of noneconomic damages should not be reduced to an amount determined by legislators because a jury can determine on a case - by - case basis to what extent to compensate a plaintiff for harm suffered — fails to address the difference between noneconomic damages and economic damages, and fails to take into account the intangibility of noneconomic damages awards.

In a case where compensatory damages to the plaintiff are relatively low, such a result might be viewed as constitutionally suspect because of the supposed «disparity» between the «actual or poten - tial harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award.»

[13] Second, reviewing courts must also consider whether the «disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award» is constitutionally excessive.

Third, reviewing courts should consider «the difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases.»

The relationship between state - funded care and damages awards has troubled the courts for some time.

This is particularly true in this case where considerable time has lapsed between the discriminatory acts and the damages to be awarded.

Such statutory damages can be between $ 500 and $ 20,000 per infringed work, and are in addition to any punitive damages that a Court may decide to award.

[1] The evidence suggests that damages awards and monies paid pursuant to settlements are reduced for contributory negligence in between 25 % and 40 % of cases.