Exxon shipping co v baker
Exxon urges the United States Supreme Court to find that under maritime law a court may not award punitive damages against a ship owner for a ship master's acts, unless the owner authorized, ratified, or participated in those acts. Exxon further contends that the Alaska district courtjury's sole basis for awarding punitive … See more Exxon also argues that it should not have been subjected to punitive damages for the oil spill under maritime law because congressionally … See more Exxon says that if the Court allows punitive damages under general maritime law, it should at least use its position at the top of the federal court hierarchy to set standards for the … See more WebJun 18, 2024 · Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486 n.5 (2008) (citations and quotation marks omitted); accord United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006) ("It should be noted that Rule 59(e) motions serve the limited function of correcting manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered …
Exxon shipping co v baker
Did you know?
WebThe owner, petitioner Exxon Shipping Co. (now SeaRiver Maritime, Inc.), and its owner, petitioner Exxon Mobil Corp. (collectively, Exxon), have settled state and federal claims for environmental damage, with payments exceeding $1 billion, and this action by respondent Baker and others, including commercial fishermen and native Alaskans, was ... WebExxon Shipping Co. v. Baker - 554 U.S. 471, 128 S. Ct. 2605 (2008) Rule: A 1:1 ratio of compensatory-to-punitive damages is a fair upper limit in maritime tort cases. Facts: Oil spilled from a tanker.
WebJun 25, 2008 · EXXON SHIPPING CO. v. BAKER U.S. Supreme Court Jun 25, 2008 Subsequent References CaseIQ TM (AI Recommendations) EXXON SHIPPING CO. v. BAKER Important Paras Most of the rules under which Exxon sought relief are inapplicable on their face. See Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 49 (a), 56 (b), (d), and 58 (2). WebOne of Exxon’s arguments—that the jury was inappropriately allowed to consider its wealth—was procedural in character. See Brief for Petitioner at 55– 56, Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605 (2008) (No. 07-219). But the Court ultimately declined to address the argument. See generally Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605 ...
WebFurther, to hold a company responsible for those egregious acts, “the conduct must emanate from corporate policy or that a corporate official with policy-making authority participated in, approved of, or subsequently ratified the egregious conduct.” 14. The quintessential case for the award of punitive damages is . Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker WebAug 3, 2011 · In Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, the Supreme Court’s most recent opinion on punitive damage awards, the Court declared that the real problem with punitive damage awards is their “stark unpredictability.” The Court abandoned all hope that common law jury instructions could produce predictable punitive damage awards. Instead, the Court ...
WebExxon Shipping Company v. Baker Public Justice joined an amicus brief that urged the U.S. Supreme Court to reject Exxon’s bid to evade full punishment for the harms caused by the wreck of the Exxon Valdez oil tanker in Alaska’s Prince William Sound in 1989. chelsea cogswellWebExxon spent some $2.1 billion in cleanup efforts, pleaded guilty to criminal violations occasioning fines, settled a civil action by the United States and Alaska for at least $900 million, and paid another $303 million in voluntary payments to private parties. flex detailing polisherExxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court ruled in a 5-3 decision that the punitive damages awarded to the victims of the Exxon Valdez oil spill should be reduced from $2.5 billion to $500 million. The case was appealed from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit had also ruled that Exxon could be held liable for the reckless conduct of the ship's captain, Joseph J. Hazelwood, … flex diary of dreamsWebExxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, at 2618. USSC disagreed with Exxon’s argument that maritime common law should not allow punitive damages. The USSC developed a ratio to determine compensatory to punitive damages, thus, guiding lower courts in calculating punitives in cases with similar conduct concerns. flex deon chris youngWebMar 1, 2010 · livelihoods (Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S.Ct., p. 2611 (2008)). 4 On the night of the spill, Jo seph Hazelwood captained the 900 foot-long tanker loaded with over a million barrels of crude oil. flex design for wallWebSummary. This amicus curiae brief argues against the defendant’s relevance of The Amiable Nancy as it applies to the case of Exxon Shipping Company, et al., Petitioners v.Grant Baker, et al., Respondents following the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska.; Exxon’s arguments do not comport with the realities of the shipping industry in … chelsea collectionWebJun 25, 2008 · June 25, 2008. The Supreme Court held that a $2.5 billion punitive damages award against Exxon was excessive as a matter of maritime common law, and limited the award to a 1:1 ratio of compensatory to punitive damages. In the ruling, the Court was equally divided on whether maritime law allows corporate liability for punitive damages … flex different height