Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

No. 105Kansas v. Colorado

By: dmc-admin//June 18, 2001//

No. 105Kansas v. Colorado

By: dmc-admin//June 18, 2001//

Listen to this article

“At one point in time, the fact that the claim was unliquidated would have been of substantial importance… This common-law distinction has long since lost its hold on the legal imagination. Beginning in the early part of the last century, numerous courts and commentators have rejected the distinction for failing to acknowledge the compensatory nature of interest awards. This Court allied itself with the evolving consensus in 1933, when we expressed the opinion that the distinction between cases of liquidated and unliquidated damages ‘is not a sound one.’ Funkhousever v. J.B. Preston Co., 290 U.S. 163, 168 (1933).”

So ordered.

Stevens, J.; O’Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

On Exceptions to Report of Special Master

Polls

Should Hollywood and Nashville stay out of politics?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests