In Reversal, Tenth Circuit Slashes Punitives to One-to-One Ratio

, The National Law Journal

   | 2 Comments

In a case closely watched by tort reformers, a federal appeals court has whittled a $25.5 million punitive damages award to $1.95 million in a carbon monoxide poisoning lawsuit out of Wyoming.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Lazza C

    The jury‘s punitive award was improper and unconstitutional. If you were familiar with the case and the record on appeal instead of spouting progressive platitudes, you might know this. And NLJ- shilling for some white shoe firm that filed an amicus brief? That‘s really lame.

  • James Klimaski

    This decision takes the "punitive" out of punitive damages and usurps the will of the people chosen to decide. Just another assault on the jury system and the Constitution by activist conservative judges.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202754074368

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.