Eleventh Circuit· 4/1/1999

Johansen v. Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Citations

170 F.3d 1320
29 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 21219
48 ERC (BNA) 1703
1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 5935

How courts have described this case

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

stating that “the Seventh Amendment prohibits reexamination of a jury’s determination of the facts, which includes its assessment of the extent of plaintiffs injury,” and analyzing Hetzel
noting that “[w]here a portion of a verdict is for an identifiable amount that is not permitted by law, the court may simply modify the jury's verdict to that extent and enter judgment for the correct amount”
upholding punitive-damage award one hundred times greater than compensatory award against mine operator where acidic water escaped and damaged nearby property
upholding ratio of 100 to 1 and noting the state’s strong interest in deterring the corporate defendant’s conduct of environmental pollution
“The Seventh Amendment is not offended by this reduction because the issue is one of law and not fact.”
“A federal court not only has the power but also the obligation at any time to inquire into jurisdiction whenever the possibility that jurisdiction does not exist arises.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

35 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

50 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Johansen v. Combustion Engineering, Inc.

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.