법률사무소 세금과 법률 taxnlaw.co.kr
ID PW
TAX & LAW <세금과 법률> 당신과 당신의 소중한 가족을 지켜드립니다. Attorney LEE protects your family, not only you
[한국변호사, 미국변호사(연방법원, 일리노이주), 세무사 이재욱]
조세소송, 조세불복심판, 세무자문, 민,형사,행정,국제소송, 한국이민, 미국이민, 한국투자, 미국투자, 국제거래, 국제중재, 미술품거래 서비스
[ENGLISH LANGUAGE SERVICE FOR FOREIGNERS]
ATTORNEY LEE, JAE WOOK'S OFFICE [ LICENSED TO PRACTICE IN KOREA, U.S.A., ILLINOIS ]
TAX, LAW, IMMIGRATION & INVESTMENT INTO KOREA AND U.S.A. SERVICES, ART DEALING SERVICES
[INVESTMENT, TAX, INCORPORATION, TRADE, CONTRACT, DISPUTE IN CORPORATION, LITIGATION & TRIAL IN COURTS AND TRIBUNALS, CRIMINAL TRIAL, GOVERNMENT TREATMENT, REFUGEE, VISA, RESIDENCE, CITIZENSHIP]
국제거래,국제계약, 영문계약서, 중재,조정,ADR, Arbitration Court representation. Singapore, HK, LONDON, NY. BEIJing, LA -> BLOG[국제중재,국제재판,국제중재재판,국제거래,국제계약,국제조정, Korea Arbitrator LEE, jae wook Attorney at law(KOREA, U.S.A.)]
학교폭력,학생폭력, 학생 성폭행, 학교성폭력, 학교폭력대책자치위원회 전문서비스 -> BLOG[학교폭력, 학생폭력,학교 성폭력, 학생 성폭행, 학교폭력대책자치위원회 서비스]
세무신고,불복심판,조세소송 전문서비스 -> BLOG[세무소송,조세소송]
고품격 이혼,상속분쟁, 재산권분쟁 소송 -> BLOG[ 이혼소송, 재산분할, 상속분쟁, 양육권, 친권, 위자료]
성희롱, 성폭력, 성범죄, 성매매, 학교폭력 가해자, 피해자를 위한 전문서비스 -> BLOG[ 성희롱, 성폭력, 성범죄, 성매매, 학교폭력 가해자, 피해자를 위한 전문변호사]
병역면제,국외여행허가,이중국적,병역법위반 사건 대리 -> BLOG[ 병역법, 병역면제, 해외유학 병역연기 전문소송 변호사 이재욱(한국변호사, 미국변호사, IL, FEDERAL)]
KOREA IMMIGRATION & INVESTMENT SERVICES IN KOREA FOR FOREIGNERS -> BLOG[ Korea Visa & Immigration, Investment, Sojourn for Foreigners]
한국인을 위한 미국이민 대리서비스 -> BLOG[ Immigration to U.S.A. for KOREANS (한국인을 위한 미국 이민 대리 서비스)]
변호사 이재욱 저서 구매 사이트(TAX & LAW PRESS) -> 예스24 온라인판매

TAXNLAW.CO.KR

About Attorney| 민사
행정
| 세무
조세
| 부동산| 병역법위반소송
기소중지
병역면제
국외여행허가
| KOREA
INVESTMENT
VISA
Immigration
| 이혼
성희롱
성폭력
전문강사
| 예술과
법률
| U.S.A.
VISA
IMMIGRATION
| 파산
회생
| OFFICE| U.S.A.
VISA
APPLICATION
| Refuge
Asylum
| 미국법|
민사소송
노동,산재보상청구,해고 분쟁
적대적 기업소송 M & A
불공정행위, 프랜차이즈 가맹점분쟁
국제거래,계약서작성
지적재산권 침해소송
PATENT LAW, 특허소송
비즈니스모델특허
명예훼손,모욕 소송
사생활침해소송
명예훼손,모욕 소송


Presumed Damages May Be Available in Constitutional Torts
관리자  (Homepage)
2015-06-24 16:45:50, 조회 : 365, 추천 : 96
Your client's constitutional rights have been violated but your client has not suffered any injury other than the deprivation of the constitutional right itself. The case appears to be a loser. Is it really worth pursuing if you cannot prove an actual injury? This scenario has certainly presented itself to many legal practitioners. Even though it looks like you may be out of luck in getting damages for your client, there might be another way.
Presumed damages can be awarded even in the absence of proof of an actual injury. Unless your practice involves handling defamation cases, you probably have not had many chances to seek presumed damages for your client. Compensatory, nominal and punitive damages make up the usual damage pool that attorneys and plaintiffs seek. Sometimes, the type of harm suffered cannot be easily defined and normal categories of damages cannot serve to compensate your client. In these scenarios, an award of presumed damages may be appropriate. Presumed damages require no proof of an actual injury to be awarded. They are presumed as a matter of law to result naturally and necessarily from a tortious act. While traditionally sought in defamation per se cases, where actual harm to the individual is assumed, presumed damages have been sought and recovered when certain constitutional violations have occurred. Courts are reluctant to award presumed damages in non-defamation cases, some courts going as far as rejecting the doctrine of presumed damages in most constitutional torts. Despite the smaller nature of presumed damages awards and the reluctance of some courts to permit the award of any presumed damages, under the right circumstances, presumed damages can act as a way to compensate a plaintiff who otherwise might have received no compensation at all.
The most common types of constitutional violations that warrant presumed damages include voting rights cases, unlawful arrest cases, and freedom of speech cases. Presumed damages for constitutional torts were first recognized in U.S. jurisprudence in Wayne v. Venable, 260 F. 64 (8th Cir. 1919), a voting rights case. The court held that the right to vote is "so valuable that damages are presumed from the wrongful deprivation of it without evidence of actual loss." This case helped to set the stage for the application of the doctrine of presumed damages.
A little less than 10 years later, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the viability of awarding presumed damages in a constitutional tort in Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927). Another voting rights case, the court in Nixon reversed the dismissal of a complaint alleging $5,000 in damages for the unconstitutional denial of the plaintiff's right to vote. Since election results are usually unaffected by a single vote, the court held that damages can only be presumed from the injury to a plaintiff's rights and thus presumed damages might be warranted.
Although the Supreme Court has rejected the notion that presumed damages can be awarded for the inherent value of a constitutional right, it has acknowledged that presumed damages may be appropriate in the event of nonmonetary harm caused by the deprivation of a constitutional right. The Supreme Court in Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978), and Memphis Community School District v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299 (1986), ultimately limited when presumed damages may be awarded while still acknowledging their viability. Despite the limitations set forth in Carey and Stachura and the court's ultimate decision to reject presumed damages in both cases due to the presence of an actual injury, the court did not eliminate the possibility for future plaintiffs to obtain presumed damages for constitutional violations.
In Carey, the court rejected the contention that damages should be presumed to flow from every deprivation of the right to procedural due process. Carey established that the inherent value of a constitutional right alone does not warrant presumed damages when an individual is deprived of that right.
In another procedural due process case, the Supreme Court in Stachura stated, "When a plaintiff seeks compensation for an injury that is likely to have occurred but difficult to establish, some form of presumed damages may possibly be appropriate. In those circumstances, presumed damages may roughly approximate the harm that the plaintiff suffered and thereby compensate for harms that may be impossible to measure." This pronouncement has formed the basis for when presumed damages may be awarded. Presumed damages don't compensate a plaintiff for the inherent value of a constitutional right that has been infringed upon, but instead compensate for the harm that flows from the deprivation of that right. It must be noted that Stachura made clear that presumed damages can only be a substitute, not a supplement, for compensatory damages. As an award of compensatory damages would indicate that a definable and measurable injury occurred, other than the harm from a deprivation of a constitutional right, the need for presumed damages would be obviated.
Since Stachura, presumed damages have been awarded for a number of different constitutional violations. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in City of Watseka v. Illinois Public Action Council, 796 F.2d 1547 (7th Cir. 1986), affirmed an award of presumed damages after a political canvassing company's First Amendment rights were violated by a municipal ordinance limiting door-to-door solicitation. The presumed damages award was not based on the abstract value of the constitutional right, but instead was based on the injury suffered due to the fact that the plaintiff was prevented from exercising its First Amendment rights.
The Sixth Circuit in Walje v. City of Winchester, 827 F.2d 10 (6th Cir. 1987), upheld an award of presumed damages for a violation of First Amendment rights, holding that an "injury was likely to have occurred, but the specific elements of the damage were difficult to pinpoint because of the nature of the injury." The Ninth Circuit in Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 921 (9th Cir. 1996), recognized that presumed damages for constitutional torts "are appropriate when there is a great likelihood of injury coupled with great difficulty in proving damages."
The Second Circuit has endorsed the viability of the presumed damages doctrine for Fourth Amendment violations in Kerman v. City of New York, 374 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2004). In Kerman, the jury ruled for the plaintiff on claims for unlawful seizure and detention under the Fourth Amendment but refused to award compensatory damages. The court nonetheless ordered a new trial on damages, concluding that the plaintiff was entitled to presumed damages based on his "loss of liberty" for having been unlawfully detained. A "loss of liberty" is a harm caused by the deprivation of a constitutional right, but it is difficult to measure. This is exactly the type of harm that the presumed damages doctrine contemplates.
The Third Circuit in Allah v. Al-Hafeez, 226 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2000), found that presumed damages were not available to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed his right to free exercise of religion was infringed on and claimed damages for mental or emotional injury. Since presumed damages flow from the harm caused by the infringement of one's constitutional rights, and are not based on mental or emotional injuries, the court held the plaintiff's claimed mental or emotional injuries could not form the basis for an award of presumed damages. A proper award for mental or emotional injuries would have been in the form of compensatory damages, but those damages were barred by statute. Even though the Third Circuit declined to make presumed damages available in Al-Hafeez, the court did not foreclose on the possibility that presumed damages could be awarded in future cases where a constitutional violation occurred.
When a constitutional violation occurs, attorneys should be cognizant of the potential availability of presumed damages. Despite the difficulty in recovering presumed damages and the often modest recovery when presumed damages are awarded, they are often the only damages available where a plaintiff has suffered no cognizable injury as a result of a constitutional violation.


http://taxnlaw.co.kr/

  추천하기   [HOME]  [bitly]  [반전해제]  목록보기

Copyright 1999-2018 Zeroboard / skin by zero
일부 항목은 회원가입후 login하셔야 글을 읽고 쓰실 수 있습니다.
본 site의 정보는 영리를 목적으로 제공하는 것이 아니며, 이곳에 등재된 모든 글은 "공개"된 대법원판례에 기한 것으로 실명과 무관합니다.

세금과 법률
세금과 법률, 부동산경매, 토지수용, 이민(TAX & LAW, REAL ESTATE, IMMIGRATION)
변호사 이재욱(한국, 미국)
우)06653
서울특별시 서초구 서초동 1589-5 센츄리1 오피스텔 412호
서울특별시 서초구 반포대로14길 30 (센츄리오피스텔) 412호.
Suite 412, Banpo-daero 14-gil 30, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Korea, 06653

email: jawala.lee@gmail.com
연락전화: +82-010-6350-1799 / 미국전화: +1-323-553-1799

세금과 법률, 부동산경매, 토지수용, 이민
(TAX & LAW, REAL ESTATE, IMMIGRATION)

TAX & LAW, ART DEALING, IMMIGRATION
ATTORNEY AT LAW(KOREA, USA, ILLINOIS)
KOREA CELL: +82-010-6350-1799 / U.S.A., CELL: +1-323-553-1799
email: jawala.lee@gmail.com
우)06653
Suite 412, Banpo-daero 14-gil 30, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Korea, 06653