October Term 2000 · Docket 99-2035
What standard of review applies to excessive punitive damages?
The parties dispute the correct appellate standard for reviewing punitive damages.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
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.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 41-27 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 41-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 41-43
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case concerns the proper standard of review for appellate courts. The dispute centers on constitutional challenges to punitive damage awards.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 41-27 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 41-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 26, 2001.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
What each side wants
Cooper Industries seeks a de novo review standard.
Leatherman Tool Group seeks an abuse of discretion standard.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 41-27 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 41-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
What each side says
Cooper Industries argues appellate courts must independently assess constitutional limits.
Leatherman Tool Group argues appellate courts should defer to lower court findings.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 41-27 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 41-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked the side that brought the case to begin his argument.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 41-43
Why it matters
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.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 41-27 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 41-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 41-43
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 41-27 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 41-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 41-27 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 41-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.