Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Exxon Shipping Co. Vs. Baker

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 25, 2008

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

78 entries 7 linked 71 unlinked
Show
  1. Day Vs. Woodworth US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1851
  2. Yee Vs. Escondido US Supreme Court · Apr 01, 1992
  3. Singleton Vs. Wulff US Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1976
  4. Bmw of North America, Inc. Vs. Gore US Supreme Court · Oct 11, 1995
  5. Neil Vs. Biggers US Supreme Court · Dec 06, 1972
  6. Honda Motor Co. Vs. Oberg US Supreme Court · Apr 20, 1994
  7. Syllabus October Term, 2007 Exxon Shipping Co. V. Baker
    Search
  8. Neil v. Biggers
    Search
  9. that result, and the Court has rejected similar attempts to sever remedies from their causes of action, see Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee
    Search
  10. in 18th-century English law and became widely accepted in American courts by the mid-19th century. See, e.g., Day v. Woodworth
    Search
  11. confined by claims that state-court awards violated due process. See, e.g., State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell
    Search
  12. scheme ought to threaten defendants with a fair probability of suffering in like degree for like damage. Cf. Koon v. United
    Search
  13. and dissenting in part. Alito, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker
    Search
  14. Opinion of the Court Exxon Shipping Co. V. Baker
    Search
  15. Supreme Court of the United States No. 07-219 Exxon Shipping Company, Et Al., Petitioners V. Grant
    Search
  16. agents under Circuit precedent. See In re Exxon Valdez, 270 F. 3d, at 1236 (citing Protectus Alpha Nav. Co. v. North
    Search
  17. primarily on two cases, The Amiable Nancy , 3 Wheat. 546 (1818), and Lake Shore & Michigan Southern R. Co. v. Prentice
    Search
  18. a railway case in which the Court relied on The Amiable Nancy to announce, as a matter of pre- Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins
    Search
  19. to fall back to a modern-day variant adopted in the context of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in Kolstad v. American
    Search
  20. Durant v. Essex
    Search
  21. go without saying that the disposition here is not precedential on the derivative liability question. See, e.g., Neil v. Biggers
    Search
  22. s accompanying memorandum asserted that two recent cases, Glynn v. Roy
    Search
  23. Al Boat Management Corp., 57 F. 3d 1495 (CA9 1995), and Guevara v. Maritime
    Search
  24. Browning-Ferris Industries of Vt., Inc. v. Kelco
    Search
  25. scheme this way, and we have rejected similar attempts to sever remedies from their causes of action. See Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee
    Search
  26. no clear indication of congressional intent to occupy the entire field of pollution remedies, see, e.g., United States v. Texas
    Search
  27. see, e.g., Edmonds v. Compagnie
    Search
  28. Romero v. International
    Search
  29. Wilkes v. Wood
    Search
  30. Lofft 1, 18, 98 Eng. Rep. 489, 498 (1763) (Lord Chief Justice Pratt). In Wilkes v. Wood
    Search
  31. s papers, were a spectacular 4,000. See generally Boyd v. United
    Search
  32. States , 116 U. S. 616 , 626 (1886). And in Huckle v. Money
    Search
  33. untethered to strict numerical multipliers, and the doctrine promptly crossed the Atlantic, see, e.g., Genay v. Norris
    Search
  34. Coryell v. Colbaugh
    Search
  35. N. J. L. 77 (1791), to become widely accepted in American courts by the middle of the 19th century, see, e.g., Day v. Woodworth
    Search
  36. Tullidge v. Wade
    Search
  37. Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman
    Search
  38. wrongdoing is hard to detect (increasing chances of getting away with it), see, e.g., BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore
    Search
  39. induce private litigation to supplement official enforcement that might fall short if unaided. See, e.g., Reiter v. Sonotone
    Search
  40. bars punitive damages entirely, on state constitutional grounds. See, e.g., Distinctive Printing and Packaging Co. v. Cox
    Search
  41. and Washington as a matter of common law, and New Hampshire by statute codifying common law tradition. See Ross v. Conoco
    Search
  42. Flesner v. Technical
    Search
  43. Fisher Properties v. Arden-Mayfair
    Search
  44. see also Fay v. Parker
    Search
  45. Michigan courts recognize only exemplary damages supportable as compensatory, rather than truly punitive, see Peisner v. Detroit
    Search
  46. Larsen Chelsey Realty Co. v. Larsen
    Search
  47. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip
    Search
  48. see also Honda Motor Co. v. Oberg
    Search
  49. and conduct for which punitive damages are expressly authorized by statute. Rookes v. Barnard
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial