[Alcoa subsidiary] SCA challenges the jury's award of $6,142,856 in punitive damages. Under Delaware law, a jury may only award punitive damages “to punish a party for outrageous conduct and to deter a party, and others like it, from engaging in similar conduct in the future.” There was sufficient factual basis of SCA's hidden misrepresentations and the involvement of top officials at the company to sustain the jury's finding that the fraud was “outrageous.”
--Hon. Harvey Bartle, SCRG Decision
"While Hyperlaw's vanquishing of West's monopoly over judicial opinions may be far less impressive [than David being made King for vanquishing Goliath] all it asks for its efforts is that it be reimbursed for the substantial legal fees West forced it to incur in order to vindicate the public's right of access to judicial opinions. It prevailed against an adversary that did all that it could to make this litigation as expensive as possible, no doubt hoping that a small company such as Hyperlaw would not stay the course. . . ."
--Hon. John Martin, HyperLaw Decision
Our review of the evidence reveals that certain parties, including the named defendants within the city administration, were determined to run plaintiff Carl Jackson off the job. If he is denied reinstatement, they will have accomplished their purpose* * *As noted, the source of all of the hostility present in this particular case appears to stem from persons within the city administration. There is no evidence that plaintiff himself has ever taken any action which would exacerbate the situation other than his lawful filing of a complaint with the E.E.O.C. and the retention of legal counsel to guide him through the administrative hearings and appeal from the notice of termination. The litigation and appeal of this case took several years, involved extensive discovery and was marked by often bizarre efforts on the part of the City, its officials, the police department and others to discredit the Plaintiff, his friends and anyone that dared support him, and to obscure the evidence.
The record discloses that during the trial a problem arose because of an anonymous letter received by the Office of the City Attorney and that an investigation was being conducted of plaintiff's associates by a private detective and members of the police department. . ."
--Hon. Edwin Mechem, Jackson v. City
S. Scott Sewell, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks at the Department, took control of the drafting [of the environmental "Vision Document"]. . . .Sewell, a political appointee, demanded that Plaintiff, a career Civil Service employee, be reprimanded for allegedly lobbying members of Congress. . . .Upon investigating the serious charges made by Sewell, the Director of the Park Service concluded that Plaintiff had not been lobbying* * *The incident involving security for President Bush was of an entirely different nature. It was offensive and deeply insulting to a loyal American who had spent her life in service to her government. It was unfathomable to the Court.
--Hon. Gladys Kessler, Minztmyer Decision
The public interest will be well served because the people of the Virgin Islands and their property will be protected from further contamination from the red mud in Area A, economic development in the South Coast Industrial Area will be fostered, and the heavy monetary litigation burdens borne by the Virgin Islands government will be reduced. Significantly, all of these benefits will begin to take place sooner rather than later if the proposed consent decree is approved.
