Owen M. Panner

Biographical details

Portrait of Owen M. Panner Owen M. Panner,  Byron v. Rajneesh Foundation International (1985)

“ The jury applied a rough tripling formula in assessing punitive damages, awarding $1 million in punitives on the $309,990 misrepresentation claim and $250,000 in punitives on the $80,000 fiduciary relationship claim. Triple damages frequently are allowed by the United States Code, and are not shocking.
I also consider the size of the award in relation to RFI's assets. While plaintiff suggests that I consider evidence of assets used by RFI as security on its post-trial motions, I consider only the evidence of assets presented at trial.
”
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Owen M. Panner Owen M. Panner,  Byron v. Rajneesh Foundation International (1985)

“ Defendant notes that its expert was unable to find a case where Indian courts awarded punitive damages in cases of misrepresentation. The expert's own research, however, shows that punitive damages are available in cases of seduction of a man's daughter with deliberate fraud. See Nehra Affidavit. There was evidence here from which the jury could find a deliberate misrepresentation or fraud. There is no reason to limit punitive damages or misrepresentation to cases involving seduction of a man's daughter. ”
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Owen M. Panner Owen M. Panner,  Byron v. Rajneesh Foundation International (1985)

“ Regarding the poll surveys conducted under the auspices of Northwest Attitudes, a public opinion research firm, my inquiries reveal that all the volunteer interviewers recruited by The Rajneesh Legal Services Corporation were human beings and American citizens. The basis for the selection of the interviewers was that they not be members of Rajneesh Foundation International or Rajneesh Neo-Sannyas International Commune, nor were they permanent residents of the City of Rajneeshpuram. ”
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature