Oregon Law Review : Vol. 87 No. 2, p.637-670 : Punitives, Damaged: The Troubling Due Process Implications of Philip Morris v. Williams and the Case for a Sounder Approach to Litigating Third- Party Harm

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorLandau, J. Aaron
dc.date.accessioned2009-05-19T17:22:32Z
dc.date.available2009-05-19T17:22:32Z
dc.date.issued2008
dc.description33 p.en
dc.description.abstractPart I of this Comment summarizes the history of punitive damages jurisprudence leading up to the conflict in Philip Morris. Part II discusses the factual and procedural history of Philip Morris and explains the Supreme Court’s holding in the case. Part III analyzes the Court’s reasoning and the problems it presents upon real-world application. Part IV concludes this Comment by briefly discussing an alternative approach that is both clearer than the Court’s standard and more protective of a defendant’s rights under the Due Process Clause.en
dc.identifier.issn0196-2043
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1794/9179
dc.language.isoen_USen
dc.publisherUniversity of Oregon School of Lawen
dc.titleOregon Law Review : Vol. 87 No. 2, p.637-670 : Punitives, Damaged: The Troubling Due Process Implications of Philip Morris v. Williams and the Case for a Sounder Approach to Litigating Third- Party Harmen
dc.title.alternativePunitives, Damaged: The Troubling Due Process Implications of Philip Morris v. Williams and the Case for a Sounder Approach to Litigating Third- Party Harmen
dc.typeArticleen

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Landau.pdf
Size:
123.48 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.8 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download

Collections

Oregon Law Review : Vol. 87, No. 2 (2008)