United States v. Bullman

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[t]he decision in Heiser . . . is not binding precedent” and that, subject to abuse-of-discretion review, district courts have wide latitude to craft damage awards “based on the particular facts of each case”
• holding that “[t]he decision in Heiser . . . is not binding precedent” and that, subject to abuse-of-discretion review, district courts have wide latitude to craft damage awards “based on the particular facts of each case”
• referring to award of damages in response to a claim for mental anguish and suffering as a compensatory damage
• noting ineligible plaintiffs “may continue to pursue claims under applicable . . . foreign law” (cleaned up)
• noting “a claim for solatium” is “nearly indistinguishable from a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress” (internal quotation marks omitted
• declining to “impose Heiser’s framework as a mandatory scheme under the [Act]” and stating that “[d]istrict [c]ourt judges invariably must exercise discretion in determining damages awards”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).