Doe, 120 F.3d at 1283; see also Hudson, 522 U.S. at 105, 118 S.Ct. 488 (“To hold that the mere presence of a deterrent purpose renders ... sanctions ‘criminal’ for double jeopardy purposes would severely undermine the Government’s ability to engage in effective regulation .... ”). Aggregate assessment Only two of the Mendozar-Martinez factors arguably indicate a punitive effect: the tie to criminal conduct and the excessiveness of the sanction relative to nonpunitive purposes. Neither one by itself is sufficient to overcome the legislature’s nonpunitive intent. See Hudson, 522 U.S. at 101, 118 S.Ct. 488 (rejecting the Supreme Court’s apparent prior elevation of the excessiveness factor to dispositive status); One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. at 365-66, 104 S.Ct. 1099 (<HOLDING>); Ward, 448 U.S. at 249-50, 100 S.Ct. 2636
holding that the accrual of attorneys fees alone is sufficient to establish cause holding that a hearing on a motion to amend to allege punitive damages is not necessary recognizing the financial position of the defendant as a factor in assessing a punitive damages award holding that circumstantial evidence alone may establish discriminatory intent holding that a punitive indication from the tietocriminalconduct factor does not alone establish the necessary clearest proof