A RetroSearch Logo

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Search Query:

Showing content from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_Industries,_Inc._v._Leatherman_Tool_Group,_Inc. below:

Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2001 United States Supreme Court case

Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424 (2001), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the standard of review that Federal Appeal Courts should use when examining punitive damages awards.

Leatherman Tool Group made a multifunction tool that was arguably uniquely new at the time of its introduction. In 1995, Cooper Industries, a competing toolmaker, decided to enter the same market niche with a similar tool. The competing product was originally to be nearly identical to the original, save a few cosmetic changes. When introducing the new tool at the 1996 National Hardware Show, the advertising materials, catalogs, and a mock-up were, in fact, modified versions of the original Leatherman tool.

After the trade show, Leatherman Tool Group filed a civil suit against Cooper Industries asserting claims of trade-dress infringement, unfair competition, and false advertising under the Lanham Act and a common-law claim of unfair competition for advertising and selling an imitation. In October 1997, a federal jury returned a verdict against Cooper Industries on the false advertising, imitation, and unfair competition claims and assessed damages. It awarded Leatherman Tool Group $50,000.00 in compensatory damages and $4.5 Million in punitive damages. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the punitive damages on appeal, stating that the damages were not "grossly excessive" under BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore 517 U.S. 559 (1996).

The case was argued on February 26, 2001. Cooper Industries asked the Court to decide whether the Court of Appeals reviewed the constitutionality of the punitive damages award under the correct standard.

Because the Court itself has recognized that determining if a fine is grossly excessive is "inherently imprecise" Gore held that it was necessary to evaluate a number of factors.

The Appeals Court has the responsibility on appeal of determining if the lower District court had evaluated these factors correctly. Instead of merely deciding whether the lower court had abused its judicial discretion, the punitive damages should be reviewed in their entirety. By doing so, the Appeals courts would ensure that the courts in its circuit applied these standards in a uniform manner and that citizens would receive uniform treatment.

Effects of the decision[edit]

In making its decision, the Court extended the holding in Furman v. Georgia 408 U.S. 238 (1972) that the Eighth Amendment applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. While Furman confirmed the earlier incorporation of the 8th Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause in Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 667 (1962) Cooper Industries v. Leatherman Tool Group incorporated the Excessive Fines clause.

The Court later seemed to back away from this holding. Justice Stevens' Opinion for the Court directly stated: "...the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause imposes substantive limits on the States' discretion, making the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishments applicable to the States." Nine years later, however, in a footnote to his Opinion for the Court in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. ___ (2010), Justice Alito wrote: "We never have decided whether the Third Amendment or the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of excessive fines applies to the States through the Due Process Clause." The discrepancy between these two views was resolved in Timbs v. Indiana, wherein the Court unanimously ruled that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of excessive fines is an incorporated protection applicable to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Subsequent history[edit]

On remand to the Ninth Circuit, applying the de novo review standard the Appeals court reduced the punitive damages to $500,000.00. [citation: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/970AC2B13F32751B88256BAE00575CFB/$file/9835147.pdf?openelement]

U.S. Supreme Court Article I

case law

Enumeration Clause

of

Section II Qualifications Clauses of Sections II

and

III Elections Clause

of

Section IV Speech or Debate Clause

of

Section VI Origination Clause

of

Section VII Presentment Clause

of Section VII

Taxing and Spending Clause

of

Section VIII Commerce Clause

of Section VIII

Dormant Commerce Clause Others Coinage Clause

of Section VIII

Legal Tender Cases Copyright Clause

of Section VIII

Copyright Act of 1790 Patent Act of 1793 Patent infringement case law Patentability case law Copyright Act of 1831 Copyright Act of 1870 Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 International Copyright Act of 1891 Copyright Act of 1909 Patent misuse case law Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 Lanham Act Copyright Act of 1976 Other copyright cases Other patent cases Other trademark cases Necessary and Proper Clause

of Section VIII

Habeas corpus Suspension Clause

of

Section IX No Bills of Attainder or Ex post facto Laws Clause

of Section IX

Contract Clause

of

Section X Legal Tender Cases Others Import-Export Clause

of Section X

Compact Clause

of Section X

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.4