Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:09:11.402Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Germany: Federal Court of Justice Decision Concerning the Recognition and Enforcement of U.S. Judgments Awarding Punitive Damages*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2017

Gerhard Wegen  and
James Sherer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial and Similar Proceedings
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 32 , Issue 5 , September 1993 , pp. 1320 - 1346
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

[The excerpted English translation was prepared by Gerhard Wegen and James Sherer, e 1993-all rights reserved-Gleiss Lutz Hoots Hirsch&Partners (Stuttgart/Berlin/Frankfurt/Brussels/Prague), and is reproduced with permission. The Introductory Note was prepared for International Legal Materials by Gerhard Wegen, admitted in Stuttgart, New York and as a foreign attorney in Brussels, and James Sherer, Soliciter (New Zealand and England), partner and associate respectively of Gleiss Lutz Hootz Hirsch&Partners. The assistance of Glyn Haggett in the preparation of translation and of Pierre Dahmani of Hill, Steadman&Simpson (Chicago) for US case citations is gratefully acknowledged.]

References

1 Note the attempts at reform pursuant to the Agenda for Civil Justice Reform in America, A Report from the President's Council on Competitiveness, August 1991: also the Product Liability Fairness Bill (S-687) presently before the Senate Congress Committee having previously failed to pass a Senate procedural vote, and the influence of the Bill found in the decision of the Supreme Court.of California in Anderson v. Owens Corning Fiberglass, 810 F2d 549 (1991).

2 Moselev v. General Motor Corp.. Inc.('Side-Saddle Gas Tanks“). Superior Court. Atlanta, Georgia, unreportcd February 1993.

3 BGHZ 39, 142.

* Officially reported in Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes (Zivilsachen)BGHZ 118, 312 (1993) (Case reference: IX ZR 149/91 Civil Division) Excerpts also reported in two leading legal periodicals: Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft (RIW) 1993. 132 and Neue Juristische IVochenschrift (NJW) 1992. 3096. An appeal from the Appellate Court (Oberlcmdesgericht (OLG)) Diisseldorf (reported in RIW 1991, 594).

Relevant excerpts only of the BGH decision have been reproduced here.

4 RIW 1991, P. 594

5 BB 1977, P. 116.

6 RIW/AWD 1979. P. 861.

7 AWD 1965. P. 456.

8 AWD 1969, P. 543.