SHV Coal, Inc. v. Continental Grain Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that determination of whether defendant’s conduct is outrageous is a question within the factfinder’s discretion and will not be disturbed by an appellate court unless discretion has been abused
• finding that even gross negligence will not suffice to establish punitive damages are warranted
• affirming award of punitive damages for claim based, in part, on negligence sounding in breach of fiduciary duty
• upholding punitive damages award where employee deliberately diverted contract to new employer during his last week of employment with previous employer
• finding agent breached fiduciary duty by diverting contracts to competing business from which he had just accepted an offer of employment
• examining evidence of the defendant’s conduct, not its wealth, to conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the defendant’s conduct was outrageous for purposes of imposing punitive damages

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).