punitive damages may go to the jury in a § 1983 case. See, e.g., Coleman, 114 F.3d at 788 (upholding award of compensatory damages but finding that the defendant’s “conduct in this case was not sufficiently egregious to justify the imposition of punitive damages”); Cornell v. Woods, 69 F.3d 1383, 1391 (8th Cir.1995) (affirming liability for intentional violation of plaintiffs clearly established First Amendment rights, but holding that defendants’ conduct, “though certainly not to be commended, did not rise to a level of egregiousness sufficient to justify the imposition of punitive damages”); Ivey v. Wilson, 832 F.2d 950, 958 (6th Cir.1987) (citing Smith v. Wade in reversing jury award of punitive damages in § 1983 case); Soderbeck v. Burnett County, 752 F.2d 285, 289 (7th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); Lavicky v. Burnett, 758 F.2d 468, 477 (10th
holding compensatory and punitive damages constitute legal remedies holding that when compensatory damages are nominal a much higher ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages can be contemplated holding that punitive damages do not need to be proportional to compensatory damages holding that conduct must be beyond the fraud which supported compensatory damages to award punitive damages holding that defendants politically motivated firing of plaintiff was enough to subject him to compensatory but not punitive damages