Exxon shipping co v baker

Author: lmka

August undefined, 2024

WebJun 25, 2008 · The 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 … WebFacts. This case stems from the infamous Exxon Valdez oil spill off the coast of Alaska. Plaintiffs living in Prince William Sound, the location of the spill, sued Exxon for consequential economic losses that resulted from the spill, as such plaintiffs depended on the Sound for their economic livelihood. Fault was found because the captain left ...

Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker Supreme Court Bulletin US …

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, 171 L.Ed.2d 570 (2008): Case Brief Summary - Quimbee. Get Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 128 S.Ct. 2605, 171 L.Ed.2d 570 (2008), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. matthew 4:17 nlt

Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker Case Brief for Law Students

Webthis as a serious “problem.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 499 (2008). And there has been a wide range of damages awarded for unseaworthiness claims. Plus, the availability of punitive damages should not turn on whether a plaintiff pleads a common-law WebNo. 07-219 Exxon Shipping Co. and Exxon Mobil Corp., Petitioners, v. Grant Baker, et al., Respondents. Briefs Filed On Behalf Of Respondents maritime law protects all maritime interests and compensates Alaska’s citizens for, and … WebJun 25, 2008 · The 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 … matthew 4:17

The Exxon Valdez Case and Regularizing Punishment

Learning Gateways: The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Case Study

WebMar 24, 1989 · The Exxon Valdez oil spill was a manmade disaster that occurred when Exxon Valdez, an oil tanker owned by the Exxon Shipping Company, spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil into Alaska’s Prince ... Web07-219 EXXON SHIPPING CO. V. BAKER DECISION BELOW: 490 F3d 1066 THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF Supreme Court Fellows - Supreme Court of the United States Chief Justice's Year-End Reports on the Federal Judiciary ANYA KU, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts SAMUEL J. MERCHANT, U.S. Sentencing Commission JOHN L. … matthew 4:18-22 ldsWebFurther, 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 matthew 418

"WebMar 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. " - Exxon shipping co v baker

Exxon shipping co v baker

In The Supreme Court of the United States

WebExxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U. S. 471, 507–508 (2008). This maritime tort case raises a question about the scope of a manufacturer’s duty to warn. The manufac-turers here produced equipment such as pumps, blowers, and turbines for three Navy ships. The equipment re-quired asbestos insulation or asbestos parts in order to function as ... 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.

Did you know?

Weba punitive damages/compensatory damages maximum ratio of 1.0 in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, which it viewed as an appropriate upper bound ratio for maritime oil spill cases.13 In her opinion that dissented in part, Justice Ginsburg hypothesized that the 1:1 ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages might have broader applicability in WebExxon 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.

WebFeb 27, 2008 · Exxon knew that Hazelwood had resumed drinking but did not relieve him of his post, and the ship eventually spilled 11 million gallons of oil into the ecologically sensitive sound. The jury calculated compensatory damages at $287 million, and then awarded $5 billion in punitive damages. WebJun 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 …

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 ... Web1 Exxon Shipping Co v Baker, 128 S Ct 2605 (2008). 2 The compensatory damages reference point used by the U.S. Supreme Court is $507.5 million rather than the original $287 million verdict because the Court accepted the District Court’s calculation of the total compensatory damages. See id at 2605, 2622.

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 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 herculaneum tour guideWebExxon 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. matthew 417WebExxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008) ..... 2, 24, 30 Federal Insurance Co. v. Keybank N.A., 340 Fed. App’x 5 (2d Cir. 2009) ..... 17 Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v. Great Ameri-can Insurance Co. of New York, 822 F.3d 620 matthew 4 18-22 nivWeb2008] EXXON SHIPPING CO. v. BAKER 143 II. BACKGROUND The Supreme Court’s decision in the noted case is grounded in maritime law. Maritime law is federal common law,15 but it is also judge- made in many respects.16 Theories that are well-grounded in land-based common law are not necessarily embraced by maritime decisions.17 For … matthew 4 18-20 nivWebAug 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 ... matthew 4 18-22 explainedWebEXXON SHIPPING CO. V. BAKER' The 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker is a landmark both with respect to the setting of punitive damages amounts and with respect to the use of statistical analysis of punitive damages awards to establish guidelines for punitive damages. The matthew 4:18-22WebIn Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the right to recover punitive damages in admiralty cases and held that punitive damages in the case before it could not exceed the amount of the compensatory damages awarded plus the amount of settlements in related cases. In so holding, the Court reviewed many studies related to … herculan mf blue