Class Actions for Punitive Damages
Vol: 81, Issue: 8, Page: 1787-1816
1983
- 322Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage322
- Downloads285
- Abstract Views37
Artifact Description
This Note argues that a Rule 23 class action offers the best way to manage multiple actions for punitive damages. It begins by examining the policy underlying punitive damages and the plaintiffs interest in recovering them. It then explains why a limited fund is created when courts deny punitive damage recovery as a matter of law or when punitive claims exceed defendant's assets. The Note contends that a Rule 23(b)(l)(B) class action provides the best means to manage this limited fund and reviews the circumstances in which a district court may properly certify a class action for punitive damages. It then examines the consequences of (b)(l)(B) certification and concludes that a class action provides the best way to protect the interests of plaintiffs, defendants, and the judicial system. The Note concludes by explaining why principles of federalism do not preclude class certification orders that effectively enjoin pending state court proceedings.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know