R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin

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 $25 million punitive damages award that bore a 7.58 to 1 ratio to the $3.3 million compensatory damages award was permissible
• holding that section 768.73 creates a rebuttable presumption that a punitive damages award that exceeds a three to one ratio is excessive
• recognizing that the Engle jury decided “the ‘conduct’ elements of the claims asserted by the class, and not simply ... a collection of facts relevant to those elements”
• concluding that individual plaintiffs are not required to “trot out the class action trial transcript to prove applicability of the Phase I findings” because “[s]uch a requirement undercuts the supreme court’s ruling” in Engle
• concluding that individual plaintiffs are not required to “trot out the class action trial transcript to prove applicability of the Phase I findings” because “[s]uch a requirement undercuts the supreme court’s ruling” in Engle [777]
• concluding that individual plaintiffs are not required to “trot out the class action trial transcript to prove applicability of the Phase I findings” because “[s]uch a requirement undercuts the supreme court's ruling” in Engle [III]

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).