« FINDLAW: Daily Opinion Summaries for U.S. Supreme Court - 06/23/08 | Main | FINDLAW:Daily Opinion Summaries for U.S. Supreme Court - 6/26/08 »

FINDLAW: Daily Opinion Summaries for U.S. Supreme Court - 06/25/08

ADMIRALTY, CIVIL PROCEDURE, CORPORATION & ENTERPRISE LAW, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, INJURY AND TORT LAW, OIL & GAS LAW, REMEDIES

Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, No. 07-219
In an action brought against Exxon for economic losses resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill, a circuit court ruling remitting the punitive damages award to $2.5 billion is vacated and remanded for further reduction where: 1) the Court was equally divided on the question of whether a shipowner may be liable for punitive damages without acquiescence in the actions causing harm, and thus the circuit court's opinion is undisturbed on the issue; 2) federal statutory law does not bar a punitive award on top of damages for economic loss; but 3) the award in this case should be limited to an amount equal to compensatory damages, or approximately $500 million.

BANKING LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, CIVIL RIGHTS, CONTRACTS, INDIAN LAW, LANDLORD TENANT LAW, PROPERTY LAW & REAL ESTATE

Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., No. 07-411
In a discrimination, breach of contract, and bad faith suit brought in Tribal Court by an Indian couple against a non-Indian bank, which sold land that it owned, and had previously leased to plaintiffs, on a tribal reservation to non-Indians, judgment and award for plaintiffs is reversed where the tribal court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a discrimination claim concerning the non-Indian bank's sale of fee land it owned.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE

Kennedy v. Louisiana, No. 07-343
The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution bars a state from imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the victim's death.

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE

Giles v. California, No. 07-6053
The theory of forfeiture by wrongdoing accepted by the California Supreme Court, which holds that a criminal defendant forfeits his right to confront the victim's testimony when the defendant commits an intentional criminal act that makes the victim unavailable to testify, is not a founding-era exception to the Sixth Amendment confrontation right.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on June 25, 2008 10:32 PM.

The previous post in this blog was FINDLAW: Daily Opinion Summaries for U.S. Supreme Court - 06/23/08.

The next post in this blog is FINDLAW:Daily Opinion Summaries for U.S. Supreme Court - 6/26/08.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Powered by
Movable Type 3.33