The 4-H dairy club : V. Dairy goats. Leader's guide ... to be used with 4-H Club circular 65, Missouri Experiment Station Bul. 375.

September, 1940.At head of title: "Cooperative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics, University of Missouri, College of Agriculture and the United States Department of Agriculture cooperating. J. W. Burch, Director, Agriculture Extension Service. Distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8, and June 30, 1914.""Prepared by T. T. Martin and E. T. Itschner, State Club Agents, in collaboration with M. J. Regan, Extension Dairyman."Title from cover

Poultry Breeding Club

March, 1926.Includes bibliographical references (page 23).Cover title.Includes bibliographical references (page 23)

4-H Baby Chick Club

September, 1929.Cover title

Punitive Awards After BMW, a New Capping System, and the Reported Opinion Bias

Capping punitive damages awards is a centerpiece of the tort reform movement. According to the American Tort Reform Association, as of June 30, 1996, forty-three states allowed punitive damages awards. Of these, twenty-nine states impose no caps on punitive damages and fourteen impose some form of cap. In states that cap punitive awards, the preferred method is to employ a simple multiple of the compensatory award. Eleven states rely on a multiple of the compensatory damages award. The most popular multiple is three times the compensatory award, but this is used by only five states. The capping multiples range from one to five. Two developments highlight the importance of rethinking punitive damages caps. First, the Supreme Court\u27s decision in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore shifts the range of argument in the punitive damages area. The Court relied on, inter alia, a breathtaking 500 to 1 punitive to compensatory damages ratio to invalidate an Alabama punitive damages award. Since BMW, several courts have relied on it to reduce punitive damages awards. Thus, the central question is no longer whether there will be review of punitive-compensatory ratios. Rather, the question is whether caps will be systematically defined by legislatures, or applied on an ad hoc basis by courts as a matter of federal constitutional law. Second, systematic knowledge of the patterns of compensatory and punitive damages awards is now available. The available data suggest that businesses, insurance companies, and defense lawyers cannot support the claim that punitive awards are frequent, or that they follow a crazy pattern with little or no relation to compensatory awards. The strongest claim that the data support is that some punitive damages awards have been extreme. The mass of punitive awards satisfy a surprisingly regular pattern. Together, these two developments suggest a new approach to capping punitive awards. The approach is not based on arbitrarily chosen multiples of compensatory damages, the dominant current practice, but on experience. Using publicly available data, caps can be constructed that leave unaffected the mass of punitive awards while reining in, or triggering more active review of, the few extreme awards. We present here the empirical case for a system that caps punitive awards at ten times the compensatory award. The focus here is narrow. This Article concerns one aspect of caps on punitive damages, the relationship between the compensatory and punitive award. This relationship is important because the punishment imposed ought to relate in some measure to the harm caused

The Predictability of Punitive Damages Awards in Published Opinions, the Impact of BMW v. Gore on Punitive Damages Awards, and Forecasting Which Punitive Awards Will Be Reduced

This article assesses the relation between compensatory damages and punitive damages in cases leading to published opinions and BMW v. Gore\u27s impact on the patterns of punitive damages awards in these opinions. We find that punitive damages awards are considerably higher in cases leading to published opinions than in trial level cases. But the correlation between compensatory and punitive awards found in trial level data persists in published opinions and is all but indistinguishable from the correlation in trial level data. We find no significant difference in the pattern of awards before and after BMW and no significant difference in the rate at which courts order a reduction in punitive damages awards. We also find that the mass of trial level awards provides a powerful tool for predicting the outcome of judicial review of punitive damages awards

Deadly Confusion: Juror Instructions in Capital Cases

A fatal mistake. A defendant is sentenced to die because the jury was misinformed about the law. The justice system should be designed to prevent such a tragic error. Yet our interviews with jurors who served in South Carolina capital cases indicate that this nightmare is a reality. Although our data are limited to South Carolina, the question whether jurors are adequately instructed in capital cases is of national concern. For example, the issue whether jurors should be more fully informed about the alternative to a death sentence has arisen in other states. And the question whether jurors understand the burdens of proof in capital cases can arise in any death penalty state. As with many death penalty issues, it is tempting to view the question of juror instructions solely as a question for resolution by the Supreme Court as a matter of federal constitutional law. This narrow perspective may be reinforced by the Supreme Court\u27s grant of certiorari in State v. Simmons to decide whether a jury should be informed when a life sentence means life without the possibility of parole. However important Supreme Court death penalty decisions are, the initial responsibility for instructing jurors rests with trial judges. Our data and analysis should inform trial judges about the real impact of the instructions they choose to give and not to give. Even if the Constitution does not mandate full and clear instructions, trial judges and reviewing courts should provide them in the sound exercise of their discretion. After describing the data and the law in Part I, Part II shows that jurors\u27 false expectations about alternatives to the death sentence probably influence their sentencing decisions. Part III establishes that jurors do not understand the burdens of proof governing the sentencing phase of murder trials. Part IV shows that confusion works against the defendant because the jurors\u27 strong initial inclination is to sentence to death

Inbreeding in Law School Hiring: Assessing the Performance of Faculty Hired from Within

This study compares the scholarly impact of inbred entry-level law school faculty members with the scholarly impact of noninbred entry-level law school faculty members. The sample includes 32 law schools and approximately 700 entry-level faculty members. By our measure of performance, scholarly impact as measured by citation frequency, inbred entry-level law school faculty members do not perform as well as noninbred entry-level faculty members

Trial Outcomes and Demographics: Is There a Bronx Effect?

Minorities favor injured plaintiffs and give them inflated awards. This folk wisdom in the legal community influences choice of trial locale and the screening of jurors. A Los Angeles court is said to be known by local lawyers as the bank because of the frequency and size of its anti-corporate awards. A newspaper article summarizing court results suggests, somewhat jokingly, that the Bronx County Courthouse should post a warning: People who get sued here run an increased risk of suffering staggering losses. Beliefs about the influence of factors other than race, such as income and urbanization, also are common. This Article tests these beliefs by studying the mass of tried cases. It analyzes damages awards and plaintiff win rates at trials in both federal and state courts for tort cases, products liability cases, and employment cases. Although award levels and win rates differ significantly across geographic areas, these differences often do not uniformly reflect the folk wisdom about demographic influences. In federal court trials, we find no robust evidence that award levels in cases won by plaintiffs correlate with population demographics in the expected direction. Indeed, one persistent result is a negative relation between award levels and black population percentages. With respect to plaintiff win rates in federal trials, we again find no robust evidence that local demographics help explain trial outcomes in the mass of cases. We do, however, find a significant correlation between larger black population percentages and the likelihood of a plaintiff trial win in urban job discrimination, products liability, and tort cases. In state court trials, we again find no robust evidence (at traditional levels of statistical significance) that race, income, or urbanization substantially help explain award levels. Poverty rates do have marginally significant correlations with increased award levels in tort and employment cases. And plaintiff win rates do correlate positively with poverty rates in state court tort cases, but this effect does not emerge in products liability or employment cases. Overall, we find little evidence of consistent demographic effects on trial outcomes

Significant Association Between Punitive and Compensatory Damages in Blockbuster Cases: A Methodological Primer

This article assesses the relation between punitive and compensatory damages in a data set, gathered by Hersch and Viscusi (H-V), consisting of all known punitive damages awards in excess of $100 million from 1985 through 2003. It shows that a strong, statistically significant relation exists between punitive and compensatory awards, a relation that replicates similar findings in nearly all other analyses of punitive and compensatory damages. H-V\u27s claim that no significant relation exists between punitive and compensatory awards in these data appears to be an artifact of questionable regression methodology

Statins and Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Moderate-Risk Females: A Statistical and Legal Analysis with Implications for FDA Preemption Claims

This article presents: (1) meta-analyses of studies of cardioprotection of women and men by statins, including Lipitor (atorvastatin), and (2) a legal analysis of advertising promoting Lipitor as preventing heart attacks. The meta-analyses of primary prevention clinical trials show statistically significant benefits for men but not for women, and a statistically significant difference between men and women. The analyses do not support (1) statin use to reduce heart attacks in women based on extrapolation from men, or (2) approving or advertising statins as reducing heart attacks without qualification in a population that includes many women. The legal analysis raises the question of whether Lipitor’s advertisements, which omit that Lipitor’s clinical trial found slight increased risk for women, is consistent with the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act and related Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations. The analysis suggests that FDA regulation should not preempt state law actions challenging advertising that is not supported by FDA-approved labeling. Our findings suggesting inadequate regulation of the world’s best-selling drug also counsel against courts accepting the FDA’s claimed preemption of state law causes of action relating to warnings and safety. Courts evaluating preemption claims should consider actual agency performance as well as theoretical institutional competence. Billions of health-care dollars may be being wasted on statin use by women but the current regulatory regime does not create incentives to prevent such behavior