King v. Nixon
This text of 207 F.2d 41 (King v. Nixon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The District Court rightly ruled that recovery of exemplary or punitive damages, in a civil action for assault and battery, is not precluded by the fact that the defendant may be liable to criminal prosecution, 1 and also that the defendant’s financial condition is admissible in evidence as bearing on the amount of such damages. Brown v. Evans, C.C., 17 F. 912; affirmed, Evans v. Brown, 1883, 109 U.S. 180, 3 S.Ct. 83, 27 L.Ed. 898; notes, 16 A.L.R. 771, 798, 838, 123 A.L.R. 1115, 1122, 1136.
Affirmed.
. Language to the contrary in Huber v. Teuber, 1879, 3 MacArthur 484, 497, 10 D.C. 484, is erroneous.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
207 F.2d 41, 93 U.S. App. D.C. 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-nixon-cadc-1953.