Zarcone v. Perry

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1978 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsSection 1983Punitive DamagesAppellate Review of Verdicts42 U.S.C. § 198342 U.S.C. § 1988punitive damagesexcessive verdict

Facts

During a break in traffic court, Judge Perry believed coffee purchased from Thomas Zarcone's mobile vending truck tasted bad and ordered Deputy Sheriff Windsor to bring Zarcone before him in handcuffs. Zarcone was handcuffed, paraded through the courthouse, and brought into Perry's chambers, where Perry kept him handcuffed and subjected him to a twenty-minute, threatening, pseudo-official interrogation about the coffee and his livelihood. Zarcone was later brought back to Perry a second time, where Perry said he would have the coffee analyzed and would drop charges if Zarcone admitted wrongdoing, though no charges were ever filed. The jury awarded Zarcone $80,000 compensatory damages, which Perry did not challenge, and $60,000 punitive damages against Perry, which he claimed was excessive.

Issue

Whether a $60,000 punitive damages award against a former judge in a Section 1983 action was excessive. More specifically, the court considered whether substantial punitive damages are permissible in civil rights cases and whether this award should be set aside under the applicable appellate standard.

Rule

Punitive damages are an available and potentially substantial remedy in Section 1983 actions when appropriate to deter intentional deprivations of constitutional rights. On appellate review, a punitive damages award that the trial court has refused to set aside is reviewed under the same standard as compensatory awards: whether the verdict is so high as to shock the judicial conscience and constitute a denial of justice. A defendant who wants his limited means considered in mitigation bears the burden of producing evidence of net worth or income.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cleveland, a municipal licensing director intentionally orders inspectors to detain a street musician in a locked office for an hour and threaten to revoke every permit he might seek, all because the director dislikes the musician's performance near city hall. In the musician's Section 1983 suit, the jury awards $70,000 compensatory damages and $55,000 punitive damages.

On appeal, the director argues that punitive damages in Section 1983 cases must remain modest because civil rights actions have a limited historical pattern of small awards. How should the appellate court respond?

Explanation. The majority rejected the claim that there is something inherent in civil rights actions that limits punitive damages to a narrow historic range. It reasoned that punitive damages serve deterrence and that intentional deprivations of constitutional rights are at least as important to deter as intentional torts affecting other interests. Thus, a substantial punitive award is permissible in an appropriate Section 1983 case.