Limits on punitive damages
Givaudan Flavors v. Graham
In brief
- Where it stands
- Petition Pending
Awaiting an order on the petition
- What it’s about
- Givaudan Flavors asks the Supreme Court to review a Missouri appeals court decision allowing a punishment award 28 times larger than the amount awarded for James Graham’s losses; Givaudan says the ratio exceeds constitutional limits.
- What's at stake
- The size of Graham’s punishment award remains contested, and the Supreme Court has not decided whether to review it.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The petition was distributed for a conference, but that does not mean the Court agreed to hear the case.
Givaudan’s petition raises a due-process question about how large a punishment award may be compared with compensation for a person’s losses.
Question presented
Whether an appellate court may affirm a punitive damages award that is 28 times a large compensatory award, without finding a compelling reason to depart from the presumption that punitive damages should not exceed the amount of a substantial compensatory award, or at least the historical limit of quadruple damages.
What happens next
The petition was distributed for the Court’s Nov. 6, 2026 conference, where the justices may consider whether to hear it. No oral argument is scheduled, and the conference does not guarantee a decision date.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Brief added: Petition
More questions
- What limit does Givaudan say should apply to the punishment award?
- Givaudan argues that punishment damages should not exceed a substantial award for losses—or, at minimum, should stay within a historical four-times limit—without a compelling reason.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.