Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1131387
 
 

Footnotes (36)



 


 



After Philip Morris v. Williams: What is Left of the 'Single-Digit' Ratio?


Anthony J. Sebok


Yeshiva University - Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law


Charleston Law Review, Vol. 2, p. 287, 2008
Cardozo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 237

Abstract:     
This short essay was written for a symposium on The Future of Punitive Damages held at the Charleston School of Law in 2007. I argue that the ratio rule (that punitive damages that exceed a single digit ratio presumptively violate the Due Process Clause), introduced by the Supreme Court in Campbell, is unlikely to survive. I argue this for three reasons. First, many lower courts have found ways to conceal punitive damages awards that impose, in reality, ratios in the double-digits. Second, the refusal of the Court to reverse the plaintiffs punitive damages award in Williams under the ratio rule - given that it was 98 times the compensatory award - suggests that there are members of the Court who may not want to stand behind the rule. Third, the rule represents a mistaken critique of punitive damages.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 11

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: May 9, 2008 ; Last revised: September 27, 2008

Suggested Citation

Sebok, Anthony J., After Philip Morris v. Williams: What is Left of the 'Single-Digit' Ratio?. Charleston Law Review, Vol. 2, p. 287, 2008; Cardozo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 237. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1131387

Contact Information

Anthony J. Sebok (Contact Author)
Yeshiva University - Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law ( email )
55 Fifth Ave.
New York, NY 10003
United States

Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 576
Downloads: 80
Download Rank: 181,393
Footnotes:  36

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo1 in 1.063 seconds