Perspective
Jul. 28, 2012
Navigating the 'guideposts'
A defendant's wealth has always been an essential consideration in imposing punitive damages under California law. By James L. Oberman
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR COLUMN
I write to correct a fallacy I perceive in Judge Rex Heeseman's opinion piece, "'Finances' and Punitive Damages" (July 19). I was lead appellate counsel for the plaintiff and respondent, Emily Bankhead, in one of the decisions Judge Heeseman addresses in that piece, Bankhead v. ArvinMeritor, Inc. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 68, review denied, S202851. Toward the article's conclusion, Judge Heeseman suggests "[i]t can be asser...For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In