when will a court allow a cause of action for punitive damages be considered against a defendant
Punitive damages Punitive damages are often awarded if compensatory damages are deemed an inadequate remedy. The court may impose them to prevent undercompensation of plaintiffs and to allow redress for undetectable torts and taking some strain away from the criminal justice system.[1] Punitive damages are most important for violations of the law that are hard to detect.[2]
Morse v. Frederick Melinda Cupps Dickler, in her article "The Morse Quartet: Student Speech And The First Amendment" in the Loyola Law Review,[3] provided a survey of commentary that followed in the immediate aftermath of the case: Some commentators have suggested that Morse both demonstrated a division among the Justices on student speech rights[50] and continued Fraser's and Kuhlmeier's erosion of students' First Amendment rights.[51] She regards this suggestion as "not surprising" given the outcome of the decision, the plain language of the holding, and the dissenting Justices' charge that the opinion did "serious violence to the First Amendment".[52] She adds that other commentators have asserted that while Morse did not dramatically change the law regarding student speech, it failed to answer any of the questions left by the Tinker trilogy.[53] She notes that these questions—what First Amendment protection is owed to student speech, and how courts should analyze its censorship—are currently significant as schools struggle with the issues of discriminatory student speech or hate speech,[nb 6] and student speech threatening violence.[nb 7] Further, "such questions are always paramount because schools are the training grounds for our nation's citizens and future leaders."[3]
Section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms This section serves a similar purpose as the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but does not provide witnesses the same opportunity to excuse themselves from testifying.
United States v. Microsoft Corp. On June 7, 2000, the court ordered a breakup of Microsoft as its "remedy". According to that judgment, Microsoft would have to be broken into two separate units, one to produce the operating system, and one to produce other software components.[16][17]