Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc.
United States Supreme Court
518 U.S. 415, 116 S. Ct. 2211, 135 L. Ed. 2d 659 (1996)
- Written by Alexis Tsotakos, JD
Facts
Photojournalist William Gasperini (plaintiff) amassed a collection of photographs from his work in Central America. The Center for Humanities, Inc. (center) (defendant) asked to use some of Gasperini’s images in an educational video. Gasperini loaned the center 300 transparencies, which were lost. Gasperini sued the center in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under diversity jurisdiction. The center conceded liability, and the only issue for trial was damages. Gasperini’s expert witness testified that the industry standard value was $1,500 per transparency. The jury awarded Gasperini $450,000, and the center moved for a new trial, arguing that the award was excessive. The district court denied the motion, and the center appealed. New York state law gave appellate courts the authority to order a new trial if a jury damage award “deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation.” N.Y. C.P.L.R. (CPLR) § 5501(c). The court of appeals vacated the judgment pursuant to CPLR § 5501(c), finding that the verdict materially deviated from reasonable compensation. The appellate court ordered a new trial unless Gasperini agreed to reduction of the award to $100,000. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ginsburg, J.)
Dissent (Scalia, J.)
Dissent (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
