because the appellant claimed "an infringement upon the jealously protected right of free speech," the Supreme Court considered his constitutional challenges under the plain error rule despite the fact that they were raised for the first time on appeal
How later courts described this case
- because the appellant claimed "an infringement upon the jealously protected right of free speech," the Supreme Court considered his constitutional challenges under the plain error rule despite the fact that they were raised for the first time on appeal
- upholding remittitur to $9,999 punitive damage award
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DONNELLY, Judge,
dissenting.
In my view, punitive damages may not be recovered by a former employee under the authority of § 290.140, RSMo 1978.
The purported justification for the allowance of punitive damages is to punish a defendant and thereby deter it and others from subsequent malfeasance. See MAI No. 10.01. In § 290.140, supra, the General Assembly has opted for a criminal sanction to accomplish this public purpose.
I would reverse and remand with directions to enter judgment for respondent in the amount of One Dollar.
I respectfully dissent.