PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Oct 7, 1994
Multiple Punitive Damages Fairness Act - Prohibits punitive damages in any civil action in Federal or State court in which such damages are sought against a defendant based on the same act or course of conduct for which punitive damages have already been awarded. Permits the court to award such punitive damages, subject to specified limitations, upon determining in a pre-trial hearing that: (1) the claimant will offer new and substantial evidence of previously undiscovered, additional wrongful behavior on the part of the defendant, other than the injury to the claimant; and (2) the amount of punitive damages previously imposed were insufficient to either punish the defendant's wrongful conduct or to deter the defendant and others from similar behavior in the future. Directs a court awarding punitive damages pursuant to such provision to: (1) make specific findings of fact on the record to support the award; (2) reduce the amount of the punitive portion of the damage award by the sum of the amounts of punitive damages previously paid by the defendant in prior actions based on the same act or course of conduct; and (3) prohibit disclosure to the jury of the court's determination and action. Makes this Act applicable to any civil action brought on any theory where punitive damages are sought based on the same act or course of conduct for which punitive damages have already been awarded against the defendant, except with respect to any civil action involving damages awarded under any Federal or State statute that prescribes the amount of punitive damages to be awarded. Specifies that: (1) this Act shall supersede any Federal or State law regarding recovery for punitive damages; and (2) the U.S. district courts shall not have jurisdiction over any civil action pursuant to this Act based on provisions regarding Federal question jurisdiction and commerce and antitrust regulations.
People & committees
Sen. Danforth, John C. [R-MO] · R–MO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S14835-14839)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.2537 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.2537 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.2537 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.2537 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.