Fogbow

p0rtia wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 5:39 pm Plaintiffs asked for 150 mil

4.1 mil, which is what the court reporters are saying, sounds like an insult.

p0rtia wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 5:39 pm Plaintiffs asked for 150 mil

4.1 mil, which is what the court reporters are saying, sounds like an insult.

Greatgrey wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 6:20 pm

p0rtia wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 5:39 pm Plaintiffs asked for 150 mil

4.1 mil, which is what the court reporters are saying, sounds like an insult.

This is where ya have to remember the kindergarten lesson about sharing.

There are other cases where Jones has lost by default, gotta leave something for those parents.

Tomorrow is the punitive damages part.
https://twitter.com/dansolomon/status/1 ... 5715451904

Exclusive: The Truth About the Alex Jones Phone Records
Emergency protective order reveals emails showing lawyers not given approval to use material in court as it would violate attorney client privilege.

An emergency protective order motion has been filed in the Alex Jones case relating to claims in court that lawyers had inadvertently obtained years worth of Jones’ phone records, with emails showing Plaintiffs had not been given approval to use the material in court as it would violate attorney client privilege.

However, according to an Emergency Motion for Enforcement of Protective Order filed by Jones’ lawyers, they did not given permission for the files, which only span a 6 month period from the end of 2019 through early 2020 and do not represent “an entire digital copy” of the cellphone, to be entered into evidence in court.

“The file transfer link, however, inadvertently gave Plaintiffs access to dozens of other folders as well, including confidential documents, such as the medical records of Sandy Hook Parents who are Plaintiffs in the Connecticut litigation and other documents subject to various privileges, including attorney-client and work product,” states the motion.

An email shows that the issue was raised by Bankston, who told Jones’ attorneys in an email that the files contained “confidential information.”

“My assumption is now that you did not intend to send us this? Let me know if I’m correct,” he enquired.

Bankston was told by Jones’ attorney F. Andino Reynal to “disregard the link.”

chancery wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 6:28 pm The comments referring to a maximum limit for punitive damages of 10x compensatory damages are a rough summary of federal constitutional law concerning punitive damages

It appears that a Texas statute restricts punitive damages to 2x compensatory damages. The statute also provides that a jury verdict awarding punitive damages must be based on a unanimous jury vote in favor of the award.

Edit: Plus the statute appears to cap any punitive award at $750k? Not sure about that.

Sec. 41.008. LIMITATION ON AMOUNT OF RECOVERY. (a) In an action in which a claimant seeks recovery of damages, the trier of fact shall determine the amount of economic damages separately from the amount of other compensatory damages.

(b) Exemplary damages awarded against a defendant may not exceed an amount equal to the greater of:

(1)(A) two times the amount of economic damages; plus

(B) an amount equal to any noneconomic damages found by the jury, not to exceed $750,000; or

(2) $200,000.

(12) "Noneconomic damages" means damages awarded for the purpose of compensating a claimant for physical pain and suffering, mental or emotional pain or anguish, loss of consortium, disfigurement, physical impairment, loss of companionship and society, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, injury to reputation, and all other nonpecuniary losses of any kind other than exemplary damages."

chancery wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 6:50 pm But it appears that the entire $4.1 million compensatory verdict was for noneconomic damages. If that's correct, and if I'm reading the statute correctly, the maximum punitive verdict would be $750,000.

Possibly relevant case? My understanding is that according to the Supreme Court, statutory limits on exemplary damages are to be considered per defendant, of which there are 4 in this case: Alex Jones, Free Speech Systems LLC, Infowars LLC, and Owen Shroyer

orlylicious wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 8:11 pm On CNN at 8:09pm, Paul Callan https://twitter.com/PaulCallan "CNN Legal Analyst, trial attorney, former NYC homicide prosecutor, & of counsel to Edelman & Edelman, PC http://edelmanpclaw.com" said the jury can award any punitive damage amount that they want. He said that on the appellate level, they will look into the multiples from the actual damages on the punitive. We'll see.

chancery wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 8:37 pm

orlylicious wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 8:11 pm On CNN at 8:09pm, Paul Callan https://twitter.com/PaulCallan "CNN Legal Analyst, trial attorney, former NYC homicide prosecutor, & of counsel to Edelman & Edelman, PC http://edelmanpclaw.com" said the jury can award any punitive damage amount that they want. He said that on the appellate level, they will look into the multiples from the actual damages on the punitive. We'll see.

Callan isn't a Texas lawyer and apparently is uninformed about the Texas statutory limit.

He is correct in the unimportant sense that the jury will not be told about the statutory limit, and the trial court will, if necessary, trim the jury's punitive award to comply with the limit. And even an award that complies with the limit is subject to reduction on various grounds on appeal.

p0rtia wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 8:47 pm Bankston said today in an interview that he hoped to see punitive damages in the nine figures range.

I imagine he knows what the limitations are. Or aren't.

I think that's the most wishful of thinking, given today's puny awards.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 6:28 pm Sweet. Carve him up like a Thanksgiving turkey. Everybunny gets a slice.

p0rtia wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 8:47 pm Bankston said today in an interview that he hoped to see punitive damages in the nine figures range.

I imagine he knows what the limitations are. Or aren't.

I think that's the most wishful of thinking, given today's puny awards.

chancery wrote: ↑Thu Aug 04, 2022 6:50 pm
Here's the statute:

Sec. 41.008. LIMITATION ON AMOUNT OF RECOVERY. (a) In an action in which a claimant seeks recovery of damages, the trier of fact shall determine the amount of economic damages separately from the amount of other compensatory damages.

(b) Exemplary damages awarded against a defendant may not exceed an amount equal to the greater of:

(1)(A) two times the amount of economic damages; plus

(B) an amount equal to any noneconomic damages found by the jury, not to exceed $750,000; or

(2) $200,000.

Economic damages are out-of-pocket pecuniary loss.

Noneconomic damages are pain and suffering, and the like.*

So, in this case, the jury can award punitive damages in an amount equal to the noneconomic damages, but not more than $750k.

And the jury can also award punitive damages in an amount that's no more than twice the economic damages.

But it appears that the entire $4.1 million compensatory verdict was for noneconomic damages. If that's correct, and if I'm reading the statute correctly, the maximum punitive verdict would be $750,000.
G
Too bad. Wonder what the law is in Connecticut.