Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that economic torts are “less worthy of large punitive damages awards than torts inflicting injuries to health or safety”
• holding that New Jersey Punitive Damages Act mandates \greater judicial scrutiny of jury awards than had existed under the common law\
• noting that the fact that the plaintiff had breached contracts and engaged in tortious acts was “[a]nother factor that tends to mitigate the need for a high punitive damages award”
• noting that the fact that the plaintiff had breached contracts and engaged in tortious acts was “[a]nother factor that tends to mitigate the need for a high punitive damages award”
• reviewing district court’s admission of evidence for abuse of discretion, but exercising plenary review over evidentiary rulings with legal component
• finding the third guidepost “unhelpful” in evaluating punitive damages for tortious interference and related common law torts

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).