Supreme Court of the United States - 518 U.S. 415, 116 S.Ct. 2211, 135 L.Ed.2d 659, 518 U.S. 415, 135 L. Ed. 2d 659, 116 S. Ct. 2211, SCDB 1995-082, 1996 U.S. LEXIS 4051
In the 1996 case Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a conflict between federal rules and state laws on how to review large jury awards. This case reached the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned a $450,000 jury award given to Gasperini, who had sued the defendant for losing his photos. The main question was whether federal or state law should guide the review of jury awards in diversity cases.
The court decided that state law should be used, but only if the federal district court implements it and the federal appellate court reviews it for potential abuse of discretion. The court said the state law, allowing for a new trial if the jury award differed significantly from fair compensation, should be respected under the Erie doctrine. However, the federal rule respecting district court decisions on jury awards should be followed under the Rules Enabling Act and the Seventh Amendment.
The court explained these rules can be combined by having district courts apply the state standard as federal law and appellate courts check for abuse of discretion. This case is important because it demonstrates how courts interpret federal rules and state laws in diversity cases, and apply the Erie doctrine and its principles. It highlights the balance of uniformity, federalism, and the right to a civil jury trial. Gasperini is a landmark case in federal civil procedure law, with an opinion by Justice Ginsburg.
The case involves journalist William Gasperini who sued for breach of contract, conversion, and negligence, and was awarded $450,000 in compensatory damages by a jury. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals found the jury's verdict materially deviated from reasonable compensation and ordered a new trial unless Gasperini agreed to an award of $100,000. The case raises the question of the standard for measuring the excessiveness of a jury's verdict in a state law damages action. The Supreme Court ruled that New York's "deviates materially" standard, as codified in CPLR § 5501(c), is substantive and can be applied in federal court without violating the Seventh Amendment's Reexamination Clause. Appellate review for abuse of discretion is necessary and proper to ensure fair administration of justice, and nothing in the Seventh Amendment precludes appellate review of the trial judge's denial of a motion to set aside a jury verdict as excessive.
Justice Stevens dissents from the majority's decision and believes that federal appellate courts have the power to decide if a jury's damages award exceeds a limit set by state law. However, he agrees that federal courts must apply state-law ceilings on allowable damages in diversity cases governed by New York law. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit correctly concluded that New York's excessiveness standard applies in federal court in diversity cases controlled by New York law. The majority agrees that New York law establishes the size of the damages that may be awarded but chooses to vacate and remand. The majority holds that a federal court of appeals should review for abuse of discretion a district court's decision to deny a motion for a new trial based on a jury's excessive award. The District Court should be given the opportunity to apply the "deviates materially" standard that New York law imposes. The Court of Appeals did not reexamine any fact determined by a jury, but merely identified that portion of the judgment that constitutes "unlawful excess."
The dissenting opinion in this case argues that federal appellate courts should not be allowed to review district court denials of motions for new trials based on the weight of the evidence, as it contradicts the Seventh Amendment's principles. The Court's decision to allow such reviews is a departure from historical common law practices and violates the limited authority of appellate courts to determine questions of law, not fact. The Court's analysis is insufficient, and there is no precedent supporting the practice of appellate weight-of-the-evidence review. The Court orders the case to be remanded to the District Court to test the jury's verdict against a state standard, which contradicts the principle that the proper role of trial and appellate courts in the federal system in reviewing the size of jury verdicts is a matter of federal law. The Court overrules a previous case and gives the state standard dispositive effect, but the writer disagrees with how it is categorized as a substantive rule under Erie doctrine.
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.