The unavailability of this remedy at contract causes some plaintiffs to adopt tortious interference theories instead.
The Supreme Court required that these amounts be included as income even though they do not derive from labor or capital in the Glenshaw Glass case. Justice Stevens claimed "the nuance eludes me" in his dissent in Philip Morris USA v. Williams, which created a complex framework that governed their permissibility. Exxon v. Peters suggested using a one-to-one ratio in determining a cap on them for maritime cases under federal common law, while the case State Farm v. Campbell created the more widely known constitutional (*) soft cap ratio of ten-to-one. The unavailability of this remedy at contract causes some plaintiffs to adopt tortious interference theories instead. Plaintiffs are generally only awarded these in the face of particularly egregious conduct. Tort reform laws often cap this remedy at a specific ratio of compensatory damages. For 10 points, name this remedy which aims to punish the defendant for its conduct.
The Supreme Court required that these amounts be included as income even though they do not derive from labor or capital in the Glenshaw Glass case.
punitive damages