to determine whether potential jurors can follow the law on which the parties rely. See Cardenas, 325 S.W.3d at 184-85; Standefer v. State, 59 S.W.3d 177, 181 (Tex.Crim.App.2001). Thus, when the law requires a certain type of commitment from jurors, the attorneys may ask the prospective jurors whether they can follow the law in that regard. Standefer, 59 S.W.3d at 181; see also In re Commitment of Hill, 334 S.W.3d 226, 229 (Tex.2011) (per curiam) (commitment question not improper when the commitment potential jurors were asked to make was legislatively mandated). In civil cases, however, the law does not require a jury to award a statutorily specified amount of damages if liability is found. See Taber v. Roush, 316 S.W.3d 139, 164-65 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we conclude the criminal cases
holding that because the complaint does not seek a specific amount of money converted from a particular account but rather an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial it fails to state a claim for conversion under new york law holding that punitive damages award against vicariously liable law firm was not excessive in part because the award is proportionate to the law firms financial position holding that an attorneys fees award is not appealable until the amount of the award is set holding that venire member was not disqualified as a matter of law when he indicated that he could not award a million dollars for mental anguish because the law does not require a juror to award any specific amount of damages for mental anguish holding a court may not award punitive damages