Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, Check users, delete, edit, move, oversight, protect, rollback, Administrators
51,035
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 9:
Line 9: − + + + +
no edit summary
== Interpretation ==
== Interpretation ==
The Seventh Amendment has been interpreted by a number of court cases. In ''[[Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc.]]'', 518 U.S. 415 (1996), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] upheld an award of compensatory damages against a claim that it was excessive under [[New York]] law. The Court ruled that appellate review of a federal trial court's refusal to set aside a jury verdict as excessive is reconcilable with the Seventh Amendment if "appellate control [is] limited to review for 'abuse of discretion.'" ''Id.'' at 419. In ''[[Weisgram v. Marley Co.]]'', 528 U.S. 440 (2000), a unanimous [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that federal trial and appellate courts have the authority to decide, as a matter of law, that judgment should be entered in favor of a verdict loser after unreliable and inadmissible expert testimony is excluded.
The Seventh Amendment has been interpreted by a number of court cases. In ''[[Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc.]]'', 518 U.S. 415 (1996), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] upheld an award of compensatory damages against a claim that it was excessive under [[New York]] law. The Court ruled that appellate review of a federal trial court's refusal to set aside a jury verdict as excessive is reconcilable with the Seventh Amendment if "appellate control [is] limited to review for 'abuse of discretion.'" ''Id.'' at 419. In ''[[Weisgram v. Marley Co.]]'', 528 U.S. 440 (2000), a unanimous [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that federal trial and appellate courts have the authority to decide, as a matter of law, that judgment should be entered in favor of a verdict loser after unreliable and inadmissible expert testimony is excluded.
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{US amendments}}
{{US amendments}}