Celia G. Zimmerman v. Direct Federal Credit Union and David Breslin

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that omitted instruction was substantially covered where charge as a whole “sufficiently addressed the core concern” of proposed instruction
• holding that both extent of punitive damage award and sufficiency of evidence on which it was premised required de novo review
• holding that \the 2:1 ratio of compensatory to punitive damages awarded by the jury here presents no cause for concern\
• recognizing that awards in other cases “are relevant” to a court’s analysis under BMW’s third guidepost, even though “positive law — statutes and regulations — are even more critical”
• recognizing considerable weight of authority holds that litigation-induced stress is not ordinarily recoverable as element of damages
• implying that damages would be “undeserved” if awarded based on “the effects of litigation-induced stress”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).