{"argument_date":"2001-02-26T00:00:00Z","arguments":[{"argument_date":"2001-02-26T00:00:00Z","heading":"What happened at the argument","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2000","official_transcript_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-2035.pdf","paragraphs":["William Bradford Reynolds argued for the side that brought the case.","He stated the Court considers the proper standard of review.","He noted the Ninth Circuit upheld the award against Cooper Industries.","the opposing side urged an abuse of discretion standard."],"reargument":false,"sequence":1,"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 41-27","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-2035.pdf","page_label":"file page 24, lines 41-27"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-2035.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-2035.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 41-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-2035.pdf","page_label":"file page 48, lines 41-43"}]}],"caption":"Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.","case_history":[{"changed_at":"2026-08-29T20:06:33.399744Z","explanation":"An official oral-argument transcript was verified.","status":"argued"}],"case_status":"argued","dek":"The parties dispute the correct appellate standard for reviewing punitive damages.","dek_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 41-27","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-2035.pdf","page_label":"file page 24, lines 41-27"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-2035.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-45"}],"dispositions":[],"latest_court_document_date":"2001-02-26T00:00:00Z","maturity":"official_transcript","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2000","official_disposition_urls":[],"official_docket_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/99-2035.html","primary_docket":"99-2035","revisions":[{"correction_note":"Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.","created_at":"2026-08-31T18:05:46.733724Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":1},{"correction_note":"Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.","created_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":2}],"schema_version":"1.1","sections":[{"heading":"What this case is about","paragraphs":["This case concerns the proper standard of review for appellate courts. The dispute centers on constitutional challenges to punitive damage awards."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 41-27","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-2035.pdf","page_label":"file page 24, lines 41-27"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-2035.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-45"}]},{"heading":"How the case got here","paragraphs":["The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 26, 2001."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-2035.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-15"}]},{"heading":"What each side wants","paragraphs":["Cooper Industries seeks a de novo review standard.","Leatherman Tool Group seeks an abuse of discretion standard."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 41-27","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-2035.pdf","page_label":"file page 24, lines 41-27"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-2035.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-45"}]},{"heading":"What each side says","paragraphs":["Cooper Industries argues appellate courts must independently assess constitutional limits.","Leatherman Tool Group argues appellate courts should defer to lower court findings."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 41-27","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-2035.pdf","page_label":"file page 24, lines 41-27"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-2035.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-45"}]},{"heading":"What the justices asked","paragraphs":["Chief Justice Rehnquist asked the side that brought the case to begin his argument."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 41-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-2035.pdf","page_label":"file page 48, lines 41-43"}]},{"heading":"Why it matters","paragraphs":["The outcome defines how appellate courts evaluate punitive damages. This standard affects future litigation involving excessive awards. It shapes the balance between judicial independence and deference."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 41-27","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-2035.pdf","page_label":"file page 24, lines 41-27"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-2035.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-45"}]},{"heading":"What happens next","paragraphs":["This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-2035.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 41-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-2035.pdf","page_label":"file page 48, lines 41-43"}]}],"slug":"2000-99-2035-cooper-industries-inc-v-leatherman-tool-group-inc","term":"2000","title":"What standard of review applies to excessive punitive damages?","title_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 41-27","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-2035.pdf","page_label":"file page 24, lines 41-27"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/99-2035.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-45"}],"topics":[],"undated_disposition_date_fallback":null,"updated_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z"}