143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16729206)
1. Separating compensatory and punitive damage award decisions by trial bifurcation.
Shea Adams CM; Bourgeois MJ
Law Hum Behav; 2006 Feb; 30(1):11-30. PubMed ID: 16729206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Jurors' use of standards of proof in decisions about punitive damages.
Woody WD; Greene E
Behav Sci Law; 2012; 30(6):856-72. PubMed ID: 22829456
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The effects of harassment severity and organizational behavior on damage awards in a hostile work environment sexual harassment case.
Cass SA; Levett LM; Kovera MB
Behav Sci Law; 2010; 28(3):303-21. PubMed ID: 19579260
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Predictors of verdict and punitive damages in high-stakes civil litigation.
Vinson KV; Costanzo MA; Berger DE
Behav Sci Law; 2008; 26(2):167-86. PubMed ID: 18344172
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Punitive damage decision making: the decisions of citizens and trial court judges.
Robbennolt JK
Law Hum Behav; 2002 Jun; 26(3):315-41. PubMed ID: 12061621
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Anchoring in the courtroom: the effects of caps on punitive damages.
Robbennolt JK; Studebaker CA
Law Hum Behav; 1999 Jun; 23(3):353-73. PubMed ID: 10439722
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Compensating plaintiffs and punishing defendants: is bifurcation necessary?
Greene E; Woody WD; Winter R
Law Hum Behav; 2000 Apr; 24(2):187-205. PubMed ID: 10810838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. All anchors are not created equal: the effects of Per Diem versus lump sum requests on pain and suffering awards.
McAuliff BD; Bornstein BH
Law Hum Behav; 2010 Apr; 34(2):164-74. PubMed ID: 19462225
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The effects of limiting punitive damage awards.
Greene E; Coon D; Bornstein B
Law Hum Behav; 2001 Jun; 25(3):217-34. PubMed ID: 11480801
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A comparison of students' and jury panelists' decision-making in split recovery cases.
Fox P; Wingrove T; Pfeifer C
Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):358-75. PubMed ID: 21308751
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The impact of jury instructions on the fusion of liability and compensatory damages.
Wissler RL; Rector KA; Saks MJ
Law Hum Behav; 2001 Apr; 25(2):125-39. PubMed ID: 11419378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The impact of mock jury gender composition on deliberations and conviction rates in a child sexual assault trial.
Golding JM; Bradshaw GS; Dunlap EE; Hodell EC
Child Maltreat; 2007 May; 12(2):182-90. PubMed ID: 17446571
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Measuring damages for lost enjoyment of life: the view from the bench and the jury box.
Poser S; Bornstein BH; McGorty EK
Law Hum Behav; 2003 Feb; 27(1):53-68. PubMed ID: 12647467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Conduct and its consequences: attempts at debiasing jury judgments.
Smith AC; Greene E
Law Hum Behav; 2005 Oct; 29(5):505-26. PubMed ID: 16254740
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. What's half a lung worth? Civil jurors' accounts of their award decision making.
Mott NL; Hans VP; Simpson L
Law Hum Behav; 2000 Aug; 24(4):401-19. PubMed ID: 10974800
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The power of meaningful numbers: Attorney guidance and jury deliberation improve the reliability and gist validity of damage awards.
Reed K; Hans VP; Rotenstein V; Helm RK; Rodriguez A; McKendall P; Reyna VF
Law Hum Behav; 2024 Apr; 48(2):83-103. PubMed ID: 38602803
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Capital jury deliberation: effects on death sentencing, comprehension, and discrimination.
Lynch M; Haney C
Law Hum Behav; 2009 Dec; 33(6):481-96. PubMed ID: 19333746
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Health care litigation: assuring consistency and proportionality in punitive damages awards.
Cole CA; Bernheim SJ; Holtz MD
Med Staff Couns; 1991; 5(4):33-42. PubMed ID: 10114115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The influence of liability information, severity of injury, and attitudes toward vengeance on damage awards.
Woody WD
Psychol Rep; 2008 Feb; 102(1):239-58. PubMed ID: 18481684
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The influence of opening statement/closing argument organizational strategy on juror verdict and damage awards.
Spiecker SC; Worthington DL
Law Hum Behav; 2003 Aug; 27(4):437-56. PubMed ID: 12916230
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
