18 Cited authorities

State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell
538 U.S. 408 (2003) Cited 2,687 times 51 Legal Analyses
Holding that an award of $145 million in punitive damages on a $1 million compensatory verdict violated due process
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker
554 U.S. 471 (2008) Cited 1,796 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding a Rule 59(e) motion "may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment"
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore
517 U.S. 559 (1996) Cited 2,864 times 43 Legal Analyses
Holding that a $2 million punitive damages award was "grossly excessive" and therefore exceeded the constitutional limit
Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Haslip
499 U.S. 1 (1991) Cited 1,166 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that under federal common law, juries determined issues relating to punitive damages
TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp.
509 U.S. 443 (1993) Cited 708 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts should consider “the potential harm that [the defendant's] actions could have caused”
Transportation Ins. Co. v. Moriel
879 S.W.2d 10 (Tex. 1994) Cited 1,047 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that evidence of defendant's allegedly "reckless" conduct was legally insufficient to support award of punitive damages in civil lawsuit
Lee Lewis Constr. v. Harrison
70 S.W.3d 778 (Tex. 2002) Cited 563 times
Holding the plaintiff established conscious indifference when the plaintiff offered testimony of an employee, who described standard safety measures, was aware of risks posed by not implementing such safety measures, and, despite knowing this risk, did not implement the measures
Viterbo v. Dow Chemical Co.
826 F.2d 420 (5th Cir. 1987) Cited 676 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that expert report was properly excluded by district court because it was based primarily on statements by plaintiff that defendant's product was only possible source of plaintiff's injuries
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Garza
164 S.W.3d 607 (Tex. 2004) Cited 307 times
Holding that an elevated burden of proof at trial requires a correspondingly elevated standard of review
Universe Life Ins. Co. v. Giles
950 S.W.2d 48 (Tex. 1997) Cited 357 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding "reasonableness" requirements of common law good faith apply equally in the statutory context
Rule 703 - Bases of an Expert's Opinion Testimony
Fed. R. Evid. 703 Cited 4,751 times 26 Legal Analyses
Explaining that facts or data of a type upon which experts in the field would reasonably rely in forming an opinion need not be admissible in order for the expert's opinion based on the facts and data to be admitted
Section 6.03 - Definitions of Culpable Mental States
Tex. Pen. Code § 6.03 Cited 1,996 times 1 Legal Analyses
Defining criminal negligence
Section 41.001 - Definitions
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.001 Cited 609 times 6 Legal Analyses
Defining the standard for gross negligence
Section 41.003 - Standards for Recovery of Exemplary Damages
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.003 Cited 583 times 4 Legal Analyses
Permitting recovery of exemplary damages if the claimant proves that fraud, malice, or gross negligence caused the harm at issue
Section 7413 - Federal enforcement
42 U.S.C. § 7413 Cited 563 times 17 Legal Analyses
Granting the Administrator discretion to extend the ambient air quality standard attainment date set in the 1977 Act by up to three years for steelmaking facilities
Section 7412 - Hazardous air pollutants
42 U.S.C. § 7412 Cited 438 times 40 Legal Analyses
Mandating the EPA "require the maximum degree of reduction" that is "achievable" in regulating hazardous air pollutants

Garner v. BP Amoco Chemical Company et al

18 Cited authorities

Holding that an award of $145 million in punitive damages on a $1 million compensatory verdict violated due process

Holding a Rule 59(e) motion "may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment"

Holding that a $2 million punitive damages award was "grossly excessive" and therefore exceeded the constitutional limit

Holding that under federal common law, juries determined issues relating to punitive damages

Holding that courts should consider “the potential harm that [the defendant's] actions could have caused”

Holding that evidence of defendant's allegedly "reckless" conduct was legally insufficient to support award of punitive damages in civil lawsuit

Holding the plaintiff established conscious indifference when the plaintiff offered testimony of an employee, who described standard safety measures, was aware of risks posed by not implementing such safety measures, and, despite knowing this risk, did not implement the measures

Holding that expert report was properly excluded by district court because it was based primarily on statements by plaintiff that defendant's product was only possible source of plaintiff's injuries

Holding that an elevated burden of proof at trial requires a correspondingly elevated standard of review

Holding "reasonableness" requirements of common law good faith apply equally in the statutory context

Explaining that facts or data of a type upon which experts in the field would reasonably rely in forming an opinion need not be admissible in order for the expert's opinion based on the facts and data to be admitted

Defining criminal negligence

Defining the standard for gross negligence

Permitting recovery of exemplary damages if the claimant proves that fraud, malice, or gross negligence caused the harm at issue

Granting the Administrator discretion to extend the ambient air quality standard attainment date set in the 1977 Act by up to three years for steelmaking facilities

Mandating the EPA "require the maximum degree of reduction" that is "achievable" in regulating hazardous air pollutants