In 2003, the Supreme Court created a presumption that only single-digit ratios of punitive damages to compensatory damages would satisfy substantive due process limits. The Court also created an exception to this presumption, applicable when the defendant’s misconduct results in only a small amount of compensatory damages or when harm is difficult to value. While lower courts have properly departed from single-digit ratios where the compensatory damages are small, they have had more difficulty doing so when harm is difficult to value. This Article proposes that, as a result, lower courts are mechanically—and incorrectly—adhering to a single-digit ratio in cases where the Court’s current framework and the purposes of punitive damages justify departure from that ratio. This Article uses cases involving intentional torts on the one hand, and private party actions involving environmental harm on the other, to illustrate how lower courts have failed to fully implement the exception to single-digit ratios. This Article proposes that, in conducting a due process analysis of punitive damages, courts should focus on the existence of uncompensated harm to either depart from single-digit ratios or calculate punitive damages based on the full amount of harm even if that amount exceeds the compensatory damage award. To avoid “windfalls” to plaintiffs in cases involving harm to public natural resources, state legislatures or state courts should utilize a “split recovery” approach to direct to governmental or nonprofit coffers a significant portion of the punitive damages awarded based on public harm. Such an approach is consistent with due process and still fulfills the purposes of punitive damages.
News & Events
-
Volume 97 Lead Piece Profiled in New York Times
The Volume 97 Lead Piece, a study of how the Supreme Court treats business interests by distinguished legal scholars Lee Epstein, William M. Landes, and Richard A. Posner, was profiled in the May 5, 2013 edition of the New York Times. The story, titled Corporations Find a Friend in the Supreme Court, [...]
-
Volume 98 Spring Submissions Closed
The Minnesota Law Review has closed the spring submissions period for Volume 98. Submissions for Volume 98 will reopen on Thursday, August 1. Please see the submissions page for more details.
-
Volume 98 Submissions Will Open Feb. 15
The Minnesota Law Review will begin accepting submissions for Volume 98 on Friday, February 15, 2013. Please see this page for more details.
-
Minnesota Law Review Announces Volume 98 Editorial Board
The Minnesota Law Review is pleased to announce its Volume 98 editorial board, headed by Editor in Chief Jake Vandelist.
-
Minnesota Law Review Announces 2013 Symposium Topic
The Minnesota Law Review is pleased to announce that its 2013 symposium will address the legal and political issues facing organized labor in the United States. The symposium will be held at the University of Minnesota Law School on October 25, 2013.
Recent Issues
- Volume 97 – No. 5
- Volume 97 – No. 4
- Volume 97 – No. 3
- Volume 97 – No. 2
- Volume 97 – No. 1
- Volume 96 – No. 6
- Volume 96 – No. 5
- Volume 96 – No. 4
- Volume 96 – No. 3
- Volume 96 – No. 2
- Volume 96 – No. 1
- Volume 95 – No. 6
- Volume 95 – No. 5
- Volume 95 – No. 4
- Volume 95 – No. 3
- Volume 95 – No. 2
- Volume 95 – No. 1
- Volume 94 – No. 6
- Volume 94 – No. 5
- Volume 94 – No. 4
- Volume 94 – No. 3
- Volume 94 – No. 2
- Volume 94 – No. 1
- Volume 93 – No. 6
- Volume 93 – No. 5
- Volume 93 – No. 4
- Volume 93 – No. 3
- Volume 93 – No. 2
- Volume 93 – No. 1
- Volume 92 – No. 6
- Volume 92 – No. 5
- Volume 92 – No. 4
- Volume 92 – No. 3
- Volume 92 – No. 2
- Volume 92 – No. 1
- Volume 91 – No. 6
- Volume 91 – No. 5
- Volume 91 – No. 4
- Volume 91 – No. 3
- Volume 91 – No. 2
- Volume 91 – No. 1
- Volume 90 – No. 6
- Volume 90 – No. 5
- Volume 90 – No. 4
- Volume 90 – No. 3
- Volume 90 – No. 2
- Volume 90 – No. 1