Molzof v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the meaning of statutory language should be determined by background common-law principles against which Congress legislates
• holding that the meaning of statutory language should be determined by background common-law principles against which Congress legislates
• holding that the FTCA prohibits only damages that are considered legally punitive, not damages that may have a punitive effect, and defining “punitive damages” as damages that depend on the nature of the defendant’s conduct
• noting that “the extent of the United States’ liability under the FTCA is generally determined by reference to state law”
• noting common law understanding that punitive damages were awarded “to punish defendants for torts committed with fraud, actual malice, violence, or oppression”
• rejecting government’s view that “duplicative damages would be ‘punitive damages’ because they have the effect of making the United States pay twice”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).