Harrington v. Barfield

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that prejudgment interest is 17 appropriate in the case of solatium damages for family members of U.S. soldiers who were abducted and murdered
• holding that “the award of punitive damages will be apportioned among the estate and family of Al-Taie relative to their individual compensatory awards” (internal quotations and citations omitted)
• holding that “the award of punitive damages will be apportioned among the estate and family of Al-Taie relative to their individual compensatory awards” (internal quotations and citations omitted)
• observing that the “strict meaning” of immediate family is “one’s spouse, parents, siblings, and children” (quoting Heiser II, 659 F. Supp. 2d at 28)
• explaining that “prejudgment interest is appropriate to account for the time that [the plaintiffs] have not had access to [the] full amount” of their award
• explaining that “the elements of a solatium claim are indistinguishable from an IIED claim”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).