Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Section 1983 either when a defendant’s conduct was driven by evil motive or intent, or when it involved a reckless or callous indifference to the constitutional rights of others.” Davis v. Mason County, 927 F.2d 1473, 1485 (9th Cir.1991). An award that is “grossly excessive” violates the Due Process Clause because it denies individuals fair notice of the penalty to which his conduct could expose her. BMW v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 574, 116 S.Ct. 1589, 1598, 134 L.Ed.2d 809, 825-826 (1996). To determine the constitutionality of an award of punitive damages, a court must refer to the three BMW guidepos that is given relatively low importance when compared to other BMW guideposts. See Arizona v. ASARCO LLC, 733 F.3d 882, 886 (9th Cir.2013) reh’g en banc granted, 755 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>). Defendants offer no further arguments to show 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that conduct must be beyond the fraud which supported compensatory damages to award punitive damages (B) holding that even if the trial court had erred in denying the defendants motion for a directed verdict on punitive damages the error was harmless because the jury found in favor of the defendant and never reached the punitive damages claims (C) holding a court may not award punitive damages (D) holding that evidence of a defendants financial condition is a prerequisite to an award of punitive damages (E) holding that perhaps the most important indicium of the reasonableness of a punitive damages award is the degree of reprehensibility of the defendants conduct
Output (English): holding that even if the trial court had erred in denying the defendants motion for a directed verdict on punitive damages the error was harmless because the jury found in favor of the defendant and never reached the punitive damages claims