BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore - wikipedia BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore Supreme Court of the United States Argued October 11, 1995 Decided May 20, 1996 Full case name BMW of North America, Incorporated, Petitioner v. Dr. Ira Gore, Jr. Citations 517 U.S. 559 ( more ) 116 S. Ct. 1589 ; 134 L. Ed. 2d 809 ; 1996 U.S. LEXIS 3390 ; 64 U.S.L.W. 4335 ; 96 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3490 ; 96 Daily Journal DAR 5747 ; 9 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 585 Prior history Award of punitive damages upheld in Alabama Supreme Court Holding Excessive punitive damages awards violate substantive due process. Court membership Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P. Stevens Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy David Souter Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer Case opinions Majority Stevens, joined by O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer Concurrence Breyer, joined by O'Connor, Souter Dissent Scalia, joined by Thomas Dissent Ginsburg, joined by Rehnquist Laws applied U.S. Const. amend. XIV BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 ( 1996 ), was a United States Supreme Court case limiting punitive damages under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Contents 1 Facts 2 Issue 3 Opinion of the Court 4 Aftermath 5 Federalism Questions 6 See also 7 References 8 External links Facts The plaintiff, Dr. Ira Gore, bought a new BMW, and later discovered that the vehicle had been repainted before he bought it. Defendant BMW of North America revealed that their policy was to sell damaged cars as new if the damage could be fixed for less than 3 % of the cost of the car. Dr. Gore sued, and an Alabama jury awarded $4,000 in compensatory damages ( lost value of the car ) and $4 million in punitive damages, which was later reduced to $2 million by the Alabama Supreme Court. The punitive damages resulted not only from Dr. Gore 's damages, but from BMW 's egregious behavior across a broad spectrum of BMW purchasers over a multi-year period of time in which BMW repaired damaged vehicles and sold them as new to unsuspecting buyers as a matter of routine business operation. ( L. Andrew Goggans, M.A. ) ( 1 ) Issue Whether excessively high punitive damages violate the Due Process clause of the Constitution. Opinion of the Court The Court, in an opinion by Justice Stevens, found that the excessively high punitive damages in this case violate the Due Process clause. For punitive damages to stand, the damages must be reasonably necessary to vindicate the State 's legitimate interest in punishment and deterrence. Punitive damages may not be `` grossly excessive '' - if they are, then they violate substantive due process. The Supreme Court applied three factors in making this determination : The degree of reprehensibility of the defendant 's conduct ; the ratio to the compensatory damages awarded ( actual or potential harm inflicted on the plaintiff ) ; and Comparison of the punitive damages award and civil or criminal penalties that could be imposed for comparable misconduct. Using these factors, the Court found that BMW 's conduct was not particularly reprehensible ( no reckless disregard for health or safety, nor even evidence of bad faith ). The ratio of actual or potential damages to punitive damages was suspiciously high. Finally, the criminal sanctions available for similar conduct were limited to $2,000, making the $2 million assessment the equivalent of a severe criminal penalty. The Court noted, however, that these three factors can be over-ridden if it is `` necessary to deter future conduct. '' Dissenting opinions were written by Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg both contending that the Constitution was not implicated here, raising principles of federalism. Aftermath On remand, the Supreme Court of Alabama ordered a new trial unless plaintiff accepted a remittitur of all but $50,000 of the punitive damages awarded. The court reasoned that it may not have given sufficient weight to the degree of reprehensibility of BMW 's conduct, and selected the $50,000 as in the range of other Alabama verdicts in cases of repaired cars being sold as new. Federalism questions In an academic article, following the arguments raised by the dissenting justices, Patrick Hubbard has questioned the appropriateness of federal courts reading substantive rights into the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution in order to preempt the role of state courts and legislatures. These same people say the Court should not spend its time as a `` super jury, '' second - guessing jury verdicts, but rather, `` ( T ) he court should be more deferential to state courts and legislatures, and more concerned with developing a coherent framework. '' See also State Farm v. Campbell ( 2003 ) List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 517 List of United States Supreme Court cases Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court References Jump up ^ 517 U.S. 559 ( Text of the opinion on Findlaw.com ) Jump up ^ BMW, Inc. v. Gore, 701 So. 2d 507 ( Ala. 1997 ) Jump up ^ F. Patrick Hubbard, In Honor of Walter O. Weyrauch : Substantive Due Process Limits on Punitive Damages Awards : `` Morals With Technique ? '', 60 Fla. L. Rev. 349, 352 ( 2008 ). Jump up ^ F. Patrick Hubbard, In Honor of Walter O. Weyrauch : Substantive Due Process Limits on Punitive Damages Awards : `` Morals With Technique ? '', 60 Fla. L. Rev. 349, 352 ( 2008 ). External links Works related to BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore at Wikisource `` Bad enough to punish : The application of the responsibility guidepost in punitive damages cases after BMW v. Gore '' Federation of Insurance & Corporate Counsel Quarterly, Fall 1998 BMW Current brands BMW ( sub-brands : BMW i and BMW M ) BMW Motorrad Mini Rolls - Royce Zinoro Previous brands Automobilwerk Eisenach Bayerische Flugzeugwerke BMW Marine Dixi Glas Husqvarna Motorcycles Otto Flugmaschinenfabrik Rapp Motorenwerke Rover Group Divisions and subsidiaries BMW India BMW Mexico BMW Motorsport BMW US Manufacturing Company Designworks Joint ventures BMW Brilliance ( Chinese automobile manufacturer ) Here ( mapping products ) Vehicles BMW automobiles BMW motorcycles Mini Rolls - Royce Zinoro Technologies BMW Assist ConnectedDrive iDrive Valvetronic VANOS xDrive Motorsport BMW in motorsport BMW in Formula One BMW M1 Procar Championship Kumho BMW Championship Team RMG Team Schnitzer Team RBM Team MTEK Team RLL Team Schubert Buildings BMW Central Building BMW Headquarters BMW Museum BMW Welt Other Alpina BMW Art Car BMW Car Club of America BMW people History of BMW History of BMW motorcycles Hofmeister kink BMW sold the Rover Group in 2000, however BMW retained the rights to the Mini, Riley and Triumph brands. Commons Retrieved from `` https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BMW_of_North_America,_Inc._v._Gore&oldid=787744223 '' Categories : United States Supreme Court cases United States tort case law 1996 in United States case law BMW United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court Talk Contents About Wikipedia Add links This page was last edited on 27 June 2017, at 08 : 45. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution - ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia ® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. About Wikipedia

Question: according to the bmw of north america v. gore case excessive punitive damages violate what
Answer: the Due Process clause