Griffith v. Barnes

How courts have described this case

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

• awarding punitive damages on plaintiff’s clear and convincing evidence that “defendants acted with the sole intent of defrauding a vulnerable individual”
• dismissing untimely claim for damages under TILA sua sponte because statute of limitations was jurisdictional
• awarding punitive damages of $100,000 under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act where the defendant made misrepresentations to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff did not seek actual damages
• awarding punitive damages of $100,000 under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act where the defendant made misrepresentations to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff did not seek actual damages

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).