Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Quigley v. Winter, 598 F.3d 938 (2010)

Citation
Quigley v. Winter, 598 F.3d 938 (2010)
Parent Document
Quigley v. Winter, 598 F.3d 938 (2010)
Effective Date
2010-03-16

Other Sections in This Document (232)

Full Text

526 chars
Quigley challenges the district court’s analysis, arguing the jury’s punitive damages award complied with due process and the original award should be reinstated. “We review a district court’s legal conclusions regarding punitive damages de novo.” Henderson v. Simmons Foods, Inc., 217 F.3d 612, 618 (8th Cir.2000) (citation omitted). We also review the proportionality determination de novo. See Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424, 435, 121 S.Ct. 1678, 149 L.Ed.2d 674 (2001) (citation omitted).