# Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 25, 2008 · 554 U.S. 471

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9435164

## Case

- **Full name:** EXXON SHIPPING CO. Et Al. v. BAKER Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 25, 2008
- **Citations:** 554 U.S. 471; 128 S. Ct. 2605
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Scalia
- **Judges:** Souter, Scalia, Thomas, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer
- **Cited by:** 1,430 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Limited by Brown v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 113 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (2015).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9435164

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that party can raise new argument on appeal in support of properly preserved claim, but rejecting suggestion that "a litigant could add new constitutional claims as he went along, simply because he had `consistently argued' that a challenged [action] was unconstitu…
- explaining that the decision to deviate from the general rule that an appellate court does not consider issues not raised before the trial court is “left primarily to the discretion of the courts of appeals, to be exercised on the facts of individual cases” (citation omitted)
- concluding that a punitive to compensatory damages ratio of “1:1 ... is a fair upper limit in ... maritime cases” (emphasis added)
- holding that under maritime law the maximum award of punitive damages allowed is an amount equal to the award of compensatory damages
- recognizing that a motion for reconsideration is not the appropriate vehicle to “relitigate old matters” (citation omitted)

## Opinion text

Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas joins,
concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court, including the portions that refer to constitutional limits that prior opinions have imposed upon punitive damages. While I agree with the argumentation based upon those prior holdings, I continue to believe the holdings were in error. See State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U. S. 408, 429 (2003) (Scalia, J., dissenting).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9435164. Public record. Not legal advice.