Cited by

Airlines, Co., ¶ 13 (App. 2009) (citing cases).

Airlines, Co., ¶ 38 (App. 2009) (citing cases).

Airlines, Co., ¶ 52 (App. 2009) (same).

Airlines, Co., 489, ¶¶ 38, 50 (App. 2009) (recognizing that punitive damages should be awarded only in the most egregious cases and are not intended to compensate plaintiffs but to punish the wrongdoer and deter both the wrongdoer and others from future harmful conduct).

Airlines, Co., ¶ 13 (App. 2009) (“[W]e accord substantial discretion to the trial court in the Rule 403 weighing process.”).

Airlines, Co., ¶ 10 (App. 2009).

Airlines, Co., ¶ 13 (App. 2009) ( ¶ 17 2 Absent material changes from the relevant date, we cite a statute’s current version.

Airlines Co., ¶ 10 (App. 2009).

Airlines, Co., ¶ 10 (App. 2009) (quoting State Farm Fire & Cas.

Airlines, Co., ¶ 13 (App. 2009) (noting “‘probative value’ and ‘the danger of unfair prejudice’ are not easily quantifiable factors”) ( ¶ 17 (2002)).

Airlines Co., ¶ 57 (App. 2009).

Airlines, Co., ¶ 37 (App. 2009).

Airlines, Co., ¶ 31, (providing that reports reflecting matters a public official observed or heard and reported pursuant to his duties are admissible in civil cases pursuant to Rule 803(8)(B), the public records exception to the hearsay rule).

Airlines, Co., 489, ¶¶ 38, 50, 827 (App. 2009) (recognizing that punitive damages should be awarded only in the most egregious cases and are not intended to compensate plaintiffs but to punish the wrongdoer and deter both the wrongdoer and others from future harmful conduct).

Airlines, Co., ¶ 50, (“A grossly excessive punitive damage award violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution because the defendant did not have ‘fair notice’ of its exposure to the extent of punishment that could be imposed.”).

Airlines, Co., (observing “we accord substantial discretion to the trial court in the Rule 403 weighing process”).

Hudgins v. Southwest Airlines, Co., ¶ 40