There are good reasons why the plaintiffs did not seek punitive damages. The school board (and board members in their official capacity) cannot be liable for punitive damages in a section 1983 claim. City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, 453 U.S. 247 (1981). As I noted earlier, the (hypothetical) individual capacity defendants presumably would argue that they were acting in a legislative capacity, and therefore would enjoy legislative immunity, foreclosing any relief against them.
Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue Professor of Law Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314 Nova Southeastern University (954) 262-6151 (voice) Shepard Broad Law Center (954) 262-3835 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chair, ACLU of Florida Legal Panel On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Douglas Laycock wrote: > Pennsylvania does not require compensatory damages as a prerequisite > to punitives, and it rejects the relevance of any ratio between > punitives and compensatories. Kirkbride v. Lisbon Contractors, Inc., > 555 A.2d 800 (Pa. 1989). This is a very sensible rule; the > correlation between blameworthiness and damages is weak, and punitives > are most needed when egregious conduct manages to do little damage. > Even so, the Pennsylvania rule is definitely in the minority. > There is not much in the way of a federal law of punitive damages for > constitutional torts, so this state law might well have been borrowed. > Of course, the Supreme Court makes the ratio to compensatories > relevant as a constitutional matter. State Farm Insurance Co. v. > Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003). But plaintiffs didn't ask for > punitives, and frankly, I find it hard to imagine a judge awarding in > Dover. > > Douglas Laycock > University of Texas Law School > 727 E. Dean Keeton St. > Austin, TX 78705 > 512-232-1341 > 512-471-6988 (fax) > > ________________________________ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Steven Jamar > Sent: Tue 12/20/2005 5:18 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: Dover Intelligent-Design Case > > > But damages not awarded against the board members in their individual > capacities. > > Fees and costs do not qualify as damages; nominal damages are damages. > > > > > On Dec 20, 2005, at 6:03 PM, James Maule wrote: > > > "The Defendants include the Dover Area School District (hereinafter > "DASD") and Dover Area School District Board of Directors (hereinafter > "the > Board") (collectively "Defendants"). Defendant DASD is a municipal > corporation > governed by a board of directors, which is the Board." > > "Defendants' actions in violation of Plaintiffs' civil rights as > guaranteed to them by > the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. ? 1983 subject > Defendants to > liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also > for nominal > damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs' attorneys' services and > costs > incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs' constitutional rights." > > "3. Because Plaintiffs seek nominal damages, Plaintiffs shall file with > the > Court and serve on Defendants, their claim for damages and a verified > statement of any fees and/or costs to which they claim entitlement. > Defendants shall have the right to object to any such fees and costs to > the extent provided in the applicable statutes and court rules." > > If "nominal damages," attorneys' fees, and costs qualify as damages, > there are damages. > > Jim Maule > > > > -- > > Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 > > Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8428 > > 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar > > > > > "Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is > an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing > pains some people more than having to think." > > > > > - Martin Luther King Jr., "Strength to Love", 1963 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
