United States v. Big D Enterprises, Inc. Dr. Edwin G. Dooley

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 Government had met its burden of demonstrating a pattern or practice at trial where it presented testimony from three victims of housing discrimination
• holding that the United States had met its burden of demonstrating a pattern or practice at trial when it presented testimony from three victims of housing discrimination
• noting that, in weighing BMW factors, “the reprehensibility of [defendant’s] conduct more than justifies the punitive damage award”
• rejecting argument that punitive damages must be limited to 4-to-1 ratio as “miscontru[ing] the applicable law”
• also observing that Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2) permits broad discretion to impose sanctions for a party’s failure to comply with a discovery order

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).