according to the bmw of north america v. gore case excessive punitive damages violated the due process clause.
according to the bmw of north america v. gore case excessive punitive damages violated the due process clause.
according to the bmw of north america v. gore case excessive punitive damages violate what?
the due process clause
section::::issue.









































whether excessively high punitive damages violate the due process clause of the constitution.









































section::::opinion of the court.









































the court, in an opinion by justice stevens, found that the excessively high punitive damages in this case violate the due process clause. for punitive damages to stand, the damages must be reasonably necessary to vindicate the state's legitimate interest in punishment and deterrence. punitive damages may not be "grossly excessive" - if they are, then they violate substantive due process.









































the supreme court applied three factors in making this determination:









































bullet::::1. the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct;
bmw of north america, inc. v. gore
in "bmw of north america, inc. v. gore" (1996), the court ruled that an excessive punitive award can amount to an arbitrary deprivation of property in violation of due process. the court held that punitive damages must be reasonable, as determined by the degree of reprehensibility of the conduct that caused the plaintiff's injury, the ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages, and any comparable criminal or civil penalties applicable to the conduct. in "state farm auto. ins. v. campbell" (2003), the court held that punitive damages might only be based on the acts of the defendants which harmed the plaintiffs. the court also elaborated on the factors courts must apply when reviewing a punitive award under due process principles.
punitive damages