Pro-Built Construction Firm

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a 4:1 ratio was the constitutional maximum because the defendant’s conduct was not “severely rep- rehensible”
• holding that “the district court properly considered [the p]laintiff ’s emotional distress in weighing th[e first] factor”
• concluding that this factor weighed in favor of the plaintiff when “emotional distress manifested itself in physical symptoms”; namely, “diminished appetite, insomnia, and headaches”
• concluding that “[a]t worst, Defendant acted recklessly, but without any intent to harm Plaintiff”
• holding that it is “ultimately up to the reviewing court to eyeball the punitive damages award and, after weighing the egregiousness of the particular misconduct and the harm it has caused, decide whether the award is grossly excessive”
• holding $250,000 award of compensatory damages was substantial where lost wages resulting from negligence of consumer reporting agency totaled $78,272

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).