Arpin Ex Rel. Estate of Arpin v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• observing that Gasperini found New York’s heightened review of damages to be substantive because of its tendency to decrease the average damages award and suggesting that thus such a heightened review would also be substantive for FTCA purposes
• remanding to District Court to reevaluate $7 million loss of consor- tium award in light of typical ratio of loss of consortium to wrongful death awards
• also explaining under Rule 52(a)(1), the district court must indicate its reasoning process connecting the evidence to the amount awarded
• “When a federal judge is the trier of fact, he, unlike a jury, is required to explain the grounds of his decision.”
• “It is also true, though denied by the United States, that in a suit under the [FTCA], as in a diversity suit, the damages rules of the state whose law governs 20 the substantive issues in the case bind the federal court; damages law is substantive law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).