# Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.

> Supreme Court of the United States · May 14, 2001 · 532 U.S. 424

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9434071

## Case

- **Full name:** Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** May 14, 2001
- **Citations:** 532 U.S. 424; 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 223; 2001 Daily Journal DAR 4673; 2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 2407; 69 U.S.L.W. 4299; 58 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1641; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3820; 121 S. Ct. 1678; 149 L. Ed. 2d 674; 2001 U.S. LEXIS 3520
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Thomas
- **Judges:** Stevens, Thomas, Scalia, Ginsburg
- **Cited by:** 768 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9434071

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that "courts of appeals must review the proportionality determination 'de novo’ .... 'The factual findings made by the district courts in conducting the excessiveness inquiry, of course, must be accepted unless clearly erroneous .... But the question whether a fine is …
- reasoning that compensatory damages “are intended to redress the concrete loss that the plaintiff has suffered by reason of the defendant's wrongful conduct,” whereas punitive damages "operate as 'private fines’ intended to punish the defendant and to deter future wrongdoing”
- holding that federal due process requires de novo review of punitive damage awards appealed on constitutional grounds
- explaining that punitive damages are “quasi-criminal, operate as private fines intended to punish the defendant and to deter future wrongdoing,” and reflect the jury’s “moral condemnation (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)
- holding that de novo appellate review is required for constitutional challenges to punitive damages awards in part because institutional competence does not require deference to trial court

## Opinion text

Justice Thomas,
concurring.
I continue to believe that the Constitution does not constrain the size of punitive damages awards. See BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 599 (1996) (Scalia, J., joined by Thomas, J., dissenting). For this reason, given the opportunity, I would vote to overrule BMW. This case, however, does not present such an opportunity. The only issue before us today is what standard should be used to review a trial court’s ruling on a BMW challenge. Because I agree with the Court’s resolution of that issue, I join the opinion of the Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9434071. Public record. Not legal advice.