LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

ANDERSON v GENERAL MOTORS CORP Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: AVGMC157430, CourtName: CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL, Plaintiff: ANDERSON, State: CA California, UniqueCaseRef: LCD>AVGMC157430, Punitive Damages, Award, Compensatory, Excessiveness, General Motors, Cir, California, Safety, United States, Design, Judge, Chamber, Support, Punishment, Jury, Convincing Evidence, Superior Court, Authorities, Amicus Curiae, Safety Regulations, Punitive Exaction, Set Aside, Conscious Disregard, Reasonableness, Industry Standards, Manufacturer, Cost-benefit, Corporate Risk Analysis , ContentID: 120248121

Case Documents
1 2000-05 AMICUS BRIEF
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 119946
51 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 1 document , 51 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . AMICUS BRIEF

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
AWARD
PLAINTIFFS
COMPENSATORY
COURT
EXCESSIVENESS
GENERAL MOTORS
CIR
CALIFORNIA
SAFETY
UNITED STATES
DESIGN
JUDGE
CHAMBER
SUPPORT
PUNISHMENT
JURY
CONVINCING EVIDENCE
SUPERIOR COURT
AUTHORITIES
AMICUS CURIAE
SAFETY REGULATIONS
PUNITIVE EXACTION
SET ASIDE
CONSCIOUS DISREGARD
REASONABLENESS
INDUSTRY STANDARDS
MANUFACTURER
COST-BENEFIT
CORPORATE RISK ANALYSIS
                               CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL
               FOR THE SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT - DIVISION FOUR
                                      ____________________
                                             No.  B135147
                                      ____________________

                                                   )
PATRICIA ANDERSON, individually; MARY )
BELL SEWARD as Guardian ad Litem on                )
behalf of KIONTRA BROADNAX, KIONNA )
BROADNAX, ALISHA PARKER, and                      )
TYSHON HANEY; and JO TIGNER,                       )
 individually,                                     ))        Superior Court No. BC 116926
                  Plaintiffs/Respondents,          ))
       v.                                          ))
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,                       ))
                  Defendant/Appellant.             ))
       Appeal from Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles
                         The Honorable Ernest Williams, Judge, Presiding


         BRIEF OF CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES AS
                    AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPELLANT


Of Counsel:

Robin S. Conrad                                          Stephen M. Shapiro
NATIONAL CHAMBER                                         Evan M. Tager
   LITIGATION CENTER, INC.                               Donald M. Falk (SB#150256)
1516 H Street, N.W.                                      MAYER, BROWN & PLATT
Washington, D.C. 20062                                   1909 K Street, N.W.
(202) 463-5337                                           Washington, DC  20006
                                                         (202) 263-3000


             Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States



                                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                                   


TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SNIPPETS:
  • Appeal from Superior Court of the State of California,
  • The Honorable Ernest Williams, Judge, Presiding
  • AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPELLANT
  • Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States
  • PLAINTIFFS PROVED NO BASIS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES.
  • General Motors Cannot Be Punished For Engaging In Cost-Benefit
  • satisfied all government safety regulations.
  • exceeded all industry standards for product safety.
  • convincing evidence.
  • THE ASTRONOMICAL PUNITIVE EXACTION IS GROSSLY EXCESSIVE
  • SHOULD BE SET ASIDE
  • $1.09 Billion Punishment In A Single Case.
  • The Punitive Exaction Is Not Proportional To The Compensatory
  • Unconstitutionally Excessive Punitive Award
  • THE ENTIRE JURY VERDICT WAS IMPERMISSIBLY TAINTED BY
  • Avitia v. Metropolitan Club of Chicago, Inc. (7th Cir.
  • TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued
  •    |