4 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Tennessee Supreme Court holds that businesses may lawfully refuse to hire employees solely because they’ve previously filed for workers’ compensation.

    Daniel HorwitzDaniel A. HorwitzSeptember 8, 2015

    .[2]Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896, 899 (Tenn. 1992).[3]Williams v. City of Burns, No.

  2. Legal Lessons from “Maserati Rick” – The Man Who Falsely Claimed to be a Miami Dolphin for Over 3 Years

    Butler Snow LLPAndrew TharpApril 17, 2017

    In Tennessee, “[a] person acts fraudulently when (1) the person intentionally misrepresents an existing, material fact or produces a false impression, in order to mislead another or to obtain an undue advantage, and (2) another is injured because of reasonable reliance upon that representation.” Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896, 901 (Tenn. 1992). If a person or entity can prove they reasonably relied on another person’s false impressions, and as a result, suffered damages, that other person could be held liable for damages.

  3. Practical Guidance on Application of Caps on Non-Economic Damages and Punitive Damages

    Butler Snow LLPDanny Van HornApril 15, 2015

    In Overton, the court also provided excellent guidance as to how to apply the punitive damages cap. It analyzed the punitive damages award under the standards found in Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896, 901-902 (Tenn. 1992). Then the court analyzed the punitive damages award under federal constitutional standards.

  4. U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Over $15 Million Product Liability Verdict

    Frost Brown Todd LLCMay 26, 2009

    t worth; 2) The nature and reprehensibility of defendant's wrongdoing; 3) The defendant's awareness of the amount of harm being caused and defendant's motivation in causing the harm; 4) The duration of defendant's misconduct and whether defendant attempted to conceal the conduct; 5) The expense plaintiff has borne in the attempt to recover the losses; 6) Whether defendant profited from the activity, and if defendant did profit, whether the punitive award should be in excess of the profit in order to deter similar future behavior; 7) Whether, and the extent to which, defendant has been subjected to previous punitive damage awards based upon the same wrongful act; 8) Whether, once the misconduct became known to defendant, defendant took remedial action or attempted to make amends by offering a prompt and fair settlement for actual harm caused; and 9) Any other circumstances shown by the evidence that bear on determining the proper amount of the punitive award. Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896, 901 (1992).After a full blown trial on liability, compensatory damages, and whether punitive damages were available and a second trial on the amount of punitive damages, the trial court issued a lengthy opinion reducing the punitive damages by $78,000,000.00.