Legal Document

512 U.S. 415114 S.Ct. 2331129 L.Ed.2d 336 HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD., et al., Petitioners,v.Karl L. OBERG. No. 93-644. Supreme Court of the United States Argued April 20, 1994. Decided June 24, Syllabus * After finding petitioner Honda Motor Co., Ltd., liable for injuries respondent Oberg received while driving a three-wheeled all-terrain vehicle manufactured and sold by Honda, an Oregon jury awarded $5,000,000 in punitive damages, over five times amount his compensatory damages award. In affirming, both State Appeals rejected Honda's argument that award violated due process because it was excessive courts have no power to correct verdicts under 1910 Amendment Constitution, which prohibits judicial review "unless court can affirmatively say there is evidence support verdict." The latter relied heavily on fact State's product liability statute instructions this case provided at least as much guidance those upheld Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 1, 111 1032, 113 1. also declined interpret Haslip hold requires be subject postverdict or appellate review, noted are not powerless they may vacate judgment if supporting jury's decision, available test sufficiency instructions. Held: Oregon's denial size awards violates Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Pp. ____. (a) Constitution imposes substantive limit awards. 1; TXO Production Corp. Alliance Resources, 509 ----, 2711, 125 366. opinions these cases strongly emphasized importance procedural component Clause, suggest analysis here should focus departure from traditional procedures. P. (b) Judicial safeguard against common law, see, e.g., Blunt Little, 3 F.Cas. 760, 761-762, modern practice federal every State, except Oregon, judges such See, Dagnello Long Island R. 289 F.2d 797, 799-800, n. (c) There dramatic difference between law scope Oregon. At since definitively construed Van Lom Schneiderman, 187 Or. 89, 210 P.2d 461, has procedure reducing setting aside where only basis relief awarded. No more than half century inferred passion prejudice award, decade even hinted might possess do so. If had power, would mentioned responding arguments very case. ensures some supports actually awarded, thus leaving possibility guilty defendant unjustly punished. (d) This hesitated find proceedings violative party been deprived well-established protection arbitrary inaccurate adjudication. Tumey Ohio, 273 510, 47 437, 71 L.Ed. 749. Punitive pose acute danger deprivation property, typically leave with wide discretion choosing amounts defendant's net worth creates potential juries will use their express biases big businesses. removed one few safeguards without providing any substitute indication way subsided time. Hurtado California, 110 516, 538, 4 111, 122, 28 232; International Shoe Washington, 326 310, 66 154, 90 95 distinguished. (e) claims — limitation specified complaint, clear convincing standard proof, preverdict determination maximum allowable detailed adequately Nor does decision acquit charged crime unreviewable offer historic civil cases. Clause says nothing about grants freedom, but its whole purpose prevent deprivations liberty property. 316 263, 851 1084 (1993), reversed remanded. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion Court, BLACKMUN, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, JJ., joined. filed concurring opinion. GINSBURG, dissenting opinion, REHNQUIST, C.J., Andrew Frey, DC, petitioners. Laurence H. Tribe, Cambridge, MA, respondent. Justice STEVENS Court. 1 An amendment question presented whether prohibition consistent Amendment. We not. 2 Petitioner overturned it, causing him severe permanent injuries. Respondent brought suit alleging knew known inherently unreasonably dangerous design. found $919,390.39 $5,000,000. however, were reduced 20% $735,512.31, respondent's own negligence contributed accident. On appeal, relying our then recent (1991), argued Amendment, lacked verdicts. affirmed, did governing actions case1 contain criteria provide factfinders Alabama we Haslip. provides additional requiring plaintiff prove entitlement rather mere preponderance. Recognizing other state interpreted including "clear constitutional mandate meaningful scrutiny damage awards," Adams Murakami, 54 Cal.3d 105, 284 Cal.Rptr. 318, 326, 813 1348, 1356 (1991); see Alexander & Alexander, Inc. B. Dixon Evander Assocs., Inc., 88 Md.App. 672, 596 A.2d 687 nevertheless "interpret comport requirements always must form post-verdict includes remittitur." 284, 1084, 1096 (1993). It trial "not entirely powerless" vacated "there decision," "appellate instructions." Id., 285, P.2d, 1096-1097. granted certiorari, 510 114 751, 127 69 (1994), consider limited II 5 Our recognized Corp., 366 Although fail "draw mathematical bright line constitutionally acceptable unacceptable," id., S.Ct., 2720; U.S., 18, 1043, majority Justices agreed A plurality assented proposition "grossly excessive" violate process, ---- - 2718-2719, who dissented she favored rigorous standards, "it ground so process." 2731. before us today directly concerned character identify unconstitutionally awards; confronted what procedures necessary ensure imposed manner. More specifically, 6 held method assessing process. holding, stressed availability "meaningful adequate court" subsequent review. 1044. Similarly, TXO, "award reviewed judge" unanimously affirmed appeal gave rise "to strong presumption validity." 2720. Concurring judgment, SCALIA (joined THOMAS) considered sufficient followed. particular, he " 'procedural process' reasonableness. . ." 2727. 7 All therefore first contrast relevant procedure, once described "a system judge status monitor." 113, 471 (1949). examine implications deviation established III 8 long One earliest reported involving exemplary Huckle Money, Wils. 205, Eng.Rep. 768 (C.P.1763), arose out King George III's attempt punish publishers allegedly seditious North Briton, 45. King's agents arrested plaintiff, journeyman printer, home detained six hours. defendants treated well, feeding "beef-steaks beer, suffered little damages," Wils., Eng.Rep., 768, £300, enormous sum almost three hundred plaintiff's weekly wage. lawyer requested new trial, arguing excessive. Plaintiff's counsel, hand, "in tort never interpose damages." 206, 768. While denied motion Chief explicitly absolute rule amounts. Instead, when "outrageous" "all mankind blush think so," grant "for at, 207, 769. accord view "[u]pon whole, I am excessive." Ibid. 9 Subsequent English cases, generally deferring steadfastly court's order trials solely too high. Fabrigas Mostyn, Black.W. 929, 96 549 (C.P.1773) (Damages "may monstrous excessive, themselves partiality jury");2 Sharpe Brice, 942, 557 (C.P.1774) ("It laid down, tort"); Leith Pope, 1327, 1328, 777, 778 (C.P.1779) ("[I]n account largeness unless flagrantly afford internal jury"); Jones Sparrow, T.R. 257, 101 Eng.Rep 144 (K.B.1793) (new damages); Goldsmith Lord Sefton, Anst. 808, 145 1046 (Exch.1796) (same); Hewlett Cruchley, Taunt. 277, 281, 128 696, 698 (C.P.1813) ("[I]t now well acknowledged all Courts Westminster-hall, criminal conversation, malicious prosecutions, words, matter, clearly large, send inquiry another jury"). 10 calls attention Beardmore Carrington, 244, 790 (C.P.1764) asserted single case, (that law), books found, torts." 249, 793. infer statement 18th-century damages. Respondent's overlooks several crucial facts. First, antedates cited previous paragraph. Even interpretation correct, soon thereafter. Second, itself cites concedes Chambers Robinson, Str. 691, 93 787 (K.B.1726), although characterizes wrongly decided. Third, books" little, then, now, small proportion decided reported. For example, 1764, year decided, 16 Common Pleas recorded reporter. 208-257, 769-797. Finally, inference draw, permit itself, cautioned inference: "We desire understood say, lay down happen trial." 250, 11 followed predecessors They deference ordinarily afforded verdicts, sometimes high require correction. Thus, 1822, Story, sitting Circuit Justice, ordered reduction damages.3 explaining ruling, noted: 12 "As agree, indeed exercise full delicacy difficulty. But appear committed gross error, acted improper motives, given relation person injury, duty interfere, wrong, case." 761-762 (CC Mass.1822) 13 See Whipple Cumberland Mfg. 29 934, 937-938 Me.1843). 14 19th century, after ratification many American "partiality" "passion prejudice." Nevertheless, difficulty probing juror reasoning, was, fact, Judges passion, prejudice, award.4 Coffin Coffin, Mass. 41 (1808) (In personal verdict set damages" "from exorbitancy them conclude partiality, corruption"); Taylor Giger, Ky. 586, 587 ("In ought excessiveness shew influence, led astray violence passion"); McConnell Hampton, Johns. 234, 235 (N.Y.1815) (granting noting: "That legal right trials, tort, denied. ."); Belknap Boston Maine 49 N.H. 358, 374 (1870) (setting "[w]e evident affected ."). 15 Nineteenth treatises similarly judges' authority D. Graham, Treatise Law New Trials 442 (2d ed. 1855) ("[E]ven torts, outrageous evincing interfere defendant, trial"); T. Sedgwick, Measure Damages 707 (5th 1869) ("The again holds whenever create belief misled either ignorance"); J. Sutherland, 469 (1883) (When submitted jury, "the proper allow accepted court, exorbitant indicate influenced perverted judgment"). Modern earlier authorities. 799-800 (CA2 1961) (citing 50 Alaska, Maryland, Oregon); Nome Ailak, 570 162, 173-174 (Alaska 1977); 687, 709-711, 716-722 cert. denied, Md. 435, 605 137 (1992); Texaco, Pennzoil, 729 S.W.2d (Tex.App.1987); Grimshaw Ford 119 Cal.App.3d 757, 174 348 (1981); Draper, Excessiveness Inadequacy Awarded Personal Injury Death Cases, A.L.R. 5th 195 (1993); Schapper, Against Juries Appellate Review Federal Civil Jury Verdicts, 1989 Wis.L.Rev. 237. IV 17 judge, properly instructed, error occurred during all. 1949 announced 461 (1949), construing Constitution.5 18 reduce admittedly excessive.6 placing approach.7 That opinion's characterization "lonely eminence" regard, 471, still accurate portrayal unique position. Every Union affords supra, ____, decisions reaffirmed lack remedy Fowler Courtemanche, 202 413, 448, 274 258, 275 (1954) ("If authorized powers, unhesitatingly $35,000 Tenold Weyerhaeuser Or.App. 511, 873 413 (1993) (Oregon cannot compliance $500,000 statutory noneconomic damages). 19 argues deviate practice, determine prejudice. simply incorrect. interpreting squarely precisely power. Timmins Hale, 122 43-44, 256 770, 776 (1927); McCulley Homestead Bakery, 141 460, 465-466, 226, 228 (1933). dicta later suggested issue eventually revisited, Lom, Or., 106, 468, holdings remain law. so.8 could evaluate through unconstitutional failed responded rejecting idea required 1084. As noted, two courts, California reached opposite conclusion. 1096, 13. If, claims, obvious response petitioner's argument. 20 overturn substantial (1954). unconvincing, innocent conduct warranting unlike assurance whose sanctionable subjected What punished; guilt punishment rational particular property deter future wrongdoing. V 21 abrogation raises stated touchstone analysis. Murray Hoboken Land Improvement How. 272, 372 (1856); 749 Brown Mississippi, 297 278, 56 80 682 (1936); re Winship, 397 361, 1068, 1071, 25 368 (1970); Burnham Superior Cal., County Marin, 495 604, 2105, 109 631 (1990); (1991). Because basic protections regarded fundamental, arisen complained denial. most involve Constitution. Ownbey Morgan, 94, 433, 65 837 (1921); Ins., 22 handful procedure. 232 (1884); Oliver, 333 68 499, 92 (1948); 1071. When absent adjudication, Process. Of course, deviations result infirmity. Hurtado, change "would deny quality age, render incapable progress improvement." 529, 117. suggests abrogations upheld. 23 examination neutral magistrate nearly same abrogated grand 122. contrast, similar (1945), extension state-court jurisdiction persons physically present, spite contrary prior practice. change, necessitated growth business entity, corporation, ability physical presence created problems envisioned rules developed era. Burnham, 617, 2114. addition, improvements communication transportation made litigation distant forum less onerous. social changes need nor technology unchecked anything, interstate multinational corporations aggravated problem potentially biased juries.9 24 amounts, presentation businesses, particularly local presences. danger. reasons, Amendment.10 VI that, event, role system. 26 points four courts: pre-verdict first, specified, hardly constraint all, request, unclear exceeding aside. bars examining second safeguard, important check unwarranted imposition but, like "no evidence" discussed above, Regarding third purported constraint, advance verdict. aware implements final instruction, and, concerns us, follow return lawless, biased, verdict.11 27 making arbiter early allowed Johnson Louisiana, 406 356, 374, 11, 1620, 1639-1640, 32 152 (1972) (Powell, concurring). already explained, constrained review.12 establish completely unreviewable. is, vast freedom former, latter. tortfeasor means exaction comply applied favoring areas elementary considerations justice, conclusion jury. reversed, remanded further inconsistent ordered. 30 concurring. 31 join explanation why supplement briefly description here. Before Article VII, § applying common-law standards Adcock 45 173, 179-182, 77 78, (1904) (approving remittitur excessive); 96-98, 112-113, 464, terms, eliminate altered review: tried shall otherwise re-examined state, verdict" (emphasis added). believe state-law "reasonableness" upon subsists, enforced trouble concluding 91-93, 462, "power miscarriage justice ordering trial," 471. 33 Court's establishes eliminated traditionally accorded observing (or reasonable for) enforcing state-prescribed limits djQ whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, dissenting. 34 guides factfinder's specific criteria, evidence. Where factfinder extent: nullify reversible improperly inadequately Absent 3, instructed reexamined.1 procedures, conclude, pass Constitution's threshold. fore dissent upsetting disposition 35 A. 36 To assess constitutionality scheme, turn Resources indicated outer remedies type. Significantly, neither declared essential satisfy expressed "unlimited unlimited matter fixing refused unacceptable." 1043. components calculus," referred "general reasonableness [the for] jury." 37 And grossly 2720 (plurality opinion); 2724, 2725 (KENNEDY, part judgment); 2731 (O'CONNOR, dissenting). plurality's view, product" "fair entitled validity"; presumption, "persuasive reasons" indicated, "should irrebuttable, virtually so." citing 24-40, 1046-1054 (SCALIA, judgment), 40-42, 1054-1056 judgment). stating position recalled Haslip's touchstone: "concern [for] reasonableness" essentially requires. 2720, quoting Writing plurality, explained: 38 "[W]e 'reasonableness' O'CONNOR out, requirement 'reasonable.' violation not, necessarily 'grossly excessive' Constitution." 2720-2721, (citation omitted). B 39 TXO; jurors guided instructions, maintained, "so 2770-2721.2 40 Several mechanisms channeled tightly TXO. unguided, utterly awards, Karl permitted recover $5 million Ore. Rule Civ.Proc. 18B (1994); Wiebe Seely, 215 331, 355-358, 335 379, 391 (1959); Lovejoy Specialty Hosp. Advocates Life, 121 160, 167, 855 159, 163 cap. 282, 1095, provision appears preclude seeking instruction lower cap, demanded. Additionally, relates incorrect amount, timely objects gain modification nullification Timber Access Industries Plywood-Champion Papers, 263 509, 525-528, 503 482, 490-491 (1972).3 introduce regarding wealth until "presented justify prima facie claim Ore.Rev.Stat. 41.315(2) 30.925(2) ("During course pay admitted [punitive damages]."). evidentiary designed lessen risk "that businesses." Ante, ____; 30.925(3)(g) (1991) (requiring take into "[t]he total deterrent effect misconduct"). 42 significant, "show[ed] wanton disregard health, safety welfare others." 30.925 (governing actions); 41.315(1) ("Except specifically evidence."). "[T]he clear-and-convincing requirement," considerably Haslip4 West Virginia TXO,5 "constrain[s] discretion, limiting egregious cases." 58, 1064 Nothing informed verdict, determines charge explain convincing" means. 64 G (1994) (authorizing "on initiative"). 43 Fourth, perhaps important, any, based seven forth 30.925(3) (1991): 44 "(a) likelihood time serious harm arise misconduct; "(b) degree awareness likelihood; 46 "(c) profitability "(d) duration misconduct concealment it; 48 "(e) attitude discovery "(f) financial condition defendant; "(g) misconduct, including, to, situations claimant's severity penalties subjected." 51 These precise detailing them,6 "adequate guidance" far counterparts Haslip7 52 [WESTm,S.Ct. 2346!]]TXO8 received. told (punishment deterrence) discretionary, compulsory. deemed notable generality, sufficient. 19-20, 53 went describe checks places tests criteria. 20-23, 1044-1046. factors Alabama's awards9 resemble apply. 283, 12, 1095-1096, 12. often acknowledged, respected, given. Shannon States, --- 2419, (slip op., 11-12); Richardson Marsh, 481 200, 107 1702, 1706-1707, 176 (1987). observed, "determined effect, Clause." 1096. correctly, remittitur."10 apply 30.925's objective moreover, likely prompt fair post hoc employed jurisdictions following pattern. 52, 1061 dissenting) ("[T]he [applied Court] assist make fair, decisions. Unfortunately, give the[se] standardless impose whatever wants."). concluded, "application sufficiently definite constraints finder fact." concluded guiding worked "ensur[e] resulting disproportionate deter." Ibid.11 55 conclusions buttressed verdict: "If context, prerequisites met intervene ORCP 64B(5) (trial insufficient law); Hill Garner, 277 Or 641, 561 P2d 1016 (1977) (judgment notwithstanding verdict); Brown, 306 599, 761 1300 (1988) (a reviewing decision)." 1096-1097 (parallel citations 57 shown reluctance strike established, qualifies Badger Paulson Investment 311 14, 28-30, 803 1178, 1186-1187 Andor Airlines, 303 505, 739 (1987); Schmidt Pine Tree Development 291 1373 (1981). 58 flaws 1097. Honeywell Sterling Furniture 310 210-214, 797 1019, 1021-1023 (1990) prejudicial instruct portion used attorney fees go injury fund). acknowledges, "proper instructio[n] awards." 59 short, enacted confining judicially comparatively comprehensive markedly elected factfinding, produced, province Cf. Chicago, R.I. P.R. Cole, 251 54, 56, 68, 69, 133 (1919) (upholding challenge Oklahoma assignment contributory assumption defenses decision; prerogative "confer larger powers prevail"); Minnesota Clover Leaf Creamery 449 456, 479, 715, 731-732, 659 (1981) (STEVENS, (observing "allocation functions within structure government" determine"). invalidates choice, largely concludes ante, history compelling. 60 confident clarity import. Tellingly, barely acknowledges large exercised 18th centuries. years Nation, "usually possessed Nelson, Eighteenth-Century Background John Marshall's Constitutional Jurisprudence, 76 Mich.L.Rev. 893, 905 (1978); Georgia Brailsford, Dall. 4, 483 (1794) (Chief Jay, trying party, controversy").12 parties "[i]n [s]uits law," Const., Amdt. 7, assessment "uncertain regarded, generally, exclusively function. Note, Assessment Damages, Seventh Politics Power, 91 Colum.L.Rev. 142, 156, 156-158, 163, 112. 61 revealing, notably contracts inquiry. asks: Did viewed excessive? historical wider. inspect, comprehensively comparatively, fix damages.13 Evaluated manner, scheme 19th-century provided. 62 instructs decide issues standard. adopted 1868, circumscribe [punitive] amount." 27, 1048 responsibility entrusted surely kind enacted. Compare 720 (1882) ("If, committing wrong of, defendant] recklessly, wilfully maliciously, design oppress injure compensation; beyond may, society rights order, deem proper."), 30-925 consider, inter alia, "likelihood misconduct"; "degree likelihood"; "profitability "duration it"). 63 Furthermore, extremely deferentially, Day Woodworth, 363, 371, 181 (1852) (assessment "exemplary, punitive, vindictive left inflicted depend peculiar circumstances each case"); Missouri Humes, 115 512, 521, 110, 463 (1885) ("[t]he controlled rules"); Barry Edmunds, 116 550, 565, 501, (1886) (in "actions torts fixes recoverable function verdict"). True, occasionally concluding, rarely authority. (power "very sparingly used"). assure jury," cause disturb instance, presses claim. footnote petition repeated briefs, attributed "assumption [judicial] challenges award." Pet. Cert. 16, original). assertion "state-law challenges" extraordinary, police factfindings conformity 69. And, disavowed suggestion 24. certiorari footnote: "Surely (not mention Supremacy principles) requires, minimum, entertain federal-law contention refusal indefensible." 10. 67 definitive pronouncement postdating precedent-setting demonstrating hypothesized contention.14 guide projects materializes. supra (between 1965 products one). plea plausibly merely Constitution," judiciary insists plea, Testa Katt, 330 386, 810, 967 (1947) (ruling obligation enforce law). today, maintain otherwise. 286, 1097, 14; ). summarize: qualification for, process; correctly "an review" excessiveness, added); light Clause," Accordingly, directive proper. affirm judgment. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber 200 321, 337, 287, 499. part, read: 'Punitive addition general wrongdoers discourage misconduct. defendant[s], defendant[s have] safety, others. you so, discretionary. evidence, following: sale [of vehicle] defendants' Number two, likelihood. three, four, defendant[s] notice alleged vehicle. five, defendant[s]. exceed million.' ordinary Since different twentieth effort separate classes Brief Legal Historians Daniel Coquillette al. Amici Curiae 2, 6-7, (discussing together "punitive difficult-to-quantify damages"). Story's withdrawal innovation. Dimick Schiedt, 293 474, 482-485, 296, 299-300, 79 603 (1935). better pedigree previously thought. Watson, 199-200, 100 108 (K.B.1788) ("[O]n recommended compromise, Hurry's agreeing accept 1500 [pounds] discharged rule"). aspect Vt., Kelco Disposal, Browning-Ferris, 492 2909, 2918-2919, 106 219 (1989); 21, 10, 1045, concurring); 2724-2725, 2728-2730 amended provides: "In value controversy twenty dollars, preserved, "The $10,000.00 Some members excessive; others discuss grounds divergent views." 93, 462 guaranty suits incorporated Bill Rights ten amendments refer theretofore England; judges, granting weight reason. conceded powers. [U]p 1910, people Art. union, advised, control prevail." last Trenery Score, 611, 615, 609 388, 389 (1980) (noting doubtful" continues available); Foley Pittenger, 264 476 (1972). type former 17.610 (repealed 1979 Laws, ch. 199) longer available. (Holmes, J.). 'the defense jury.' Holmes' reasoning abolish negligence. different, difficult required. adopting deferential approach verbal formulations, practical focuses prejudice," "gross excessiveness," "against great evidence." rough equivalents articulated Jackson Virginia, 443 307, 324, 99 2781, 2791-2792, 560 (1979) (whether trier have" verdict). empirical effectiveness safeguards. amicus showing average national average. Trial Lawyers Public Amicus Curiae. welcome introduction rules, statistics undermined computed draw valid statistical inferences number observations. Empirical exhaustive study appealed, appealed resulted reductions reversals percent Rustad, Defense Products Liability: Testing Tort Anecdotes Data, 78 Iowa L.Rev. (1992). above understate ignore plaintiffs settle fear ibid. stronger America England, contested. 904-917 M. Horwitz, Transformation Law, 1780-1860, p. 142 (1977). "crucial present purposes." 2111, (1990). demonstrated ratified courts. 25, (1808). reads: $200, "procedural context fundamentally fair," 280, 1094, suggestion, intermediate objected inaccurate, incomplete, insufficient, failure inform concerning statutorily-mandated cap "reasonably satisfied fraud. 6, 1037, preponderance 29, 2723, 29). jury: "Punitive damages: "First, ATV] "Number defendant[s]." 11. 30.925(3)(c), [Honda's] misconduct," 30.925(3)(g), "total punishment" subject. factor (3)(c), phrased assume existence expressly waived (3)(g), App. Plaintiff-Respondent Opposition S38436 (Ore.), 2. contend "[§ ] criteria," criteria." "Now, fraud perpetrated your word don't fraud, wouldn't money "This compensate injury. defendant. called example. So, feel feel, reasonably plaintiff[s] ha[ve] direct injured [then] awarding recovery plaintiffs, added protecting public deterring doing future. Imposition discretionary feels "Should consideration necessity preventing wrong." (internal quotation marks actual permits certain circumstances, wrongdoer serve example warning engage compensation subjected. wanton, wilful, reckless shows indifference others, surrounding occurrence, nature wrongdoing, extent inflicted, intent act, perpetrator, mitigating operate object offenses Therefore recognizes fine circumstances." 29. are: relationship occurred; reprehensibility conduct, awareness, concealment, frequency past conduct; wrongful desirability removing profit having sustain loss; 'financial position' costs litigation; (f) sanctions taken mitigation; (g) mitigation." 21-22, Green Oil Hornsby, 539 So.2d 218, 223-224 (Ala.1989), Central Elec. Cooperative Tapley, 546 376-377 (Ala.1989). Indeed, compatibility settled juries, indicate, Between one. 7. 5.4 258 out-of-pocket expenses. 23, 1046. $10 sustained 526 greater $19,000. 2718. Not Sparf 156 51, 102, 273, 293, 343 (1895), conclusively Riggs, Constitutionalizing Damages: Limits Process, Ohio St.L.J. 859, 900 akin though ____ yet recognized, occasion

Classification Label: 7