due process mandatory maximum cap on punitive damages of $2,500.00 for all cases. While Mendez creates a daunting task for plaintiffs to tackle in nominal damages cases where a large punitive damage amount is awarded, it does not impose a limit that is an across-the-board proxy for an individualized assessment of the BMW factors. First, Mendez is not a discrimination case, but a civil rights case. Sécond, it is not a case subject to a statutory cap on punitive damages, in which the cap itself may inform the excessiveness analysis. Rather, I read the appellate court’s affirmance of the district court’s remittitur of the punitive damages award to a 2,500:1 ratio in Mendez to mean nothing more than that a 2,500:1 ratio was not excessive in that case. See Mendez, 540 F.3d at 1122-23 (<HOLDING>). Ultimately, the fact that the jury’s punitive
holding that where the meaning of the jurys verdict was not clear in light of the trial courts jury instructions the court of appeals erred in directing entry of judgment for respondent the case should have been remanded to the trial judge who was in the best position to pass upon the question of a new trial in light of the evidence his charge to the jury and the jurys verdict holding that the defendant was denied due process because the procedural rule was not followed in any respect by the trial court holding that in light of the bmw guideposts the jurys award was unconstitutionally excessive in violation of due process and therefore properly remitted by the district court holding excessive force in public school context is a violation of substantive due process guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment holding portions of the coercion of public servant or voter statute unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the first amendment and in violation of the separation of powers