HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013396.jpg
1.93 MB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
0
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal motion / court filing
File Size:
1.93 MB
Summary
This document is page 3 of a 'Second Renewed Motion for Leave to Assert Claim for Punitive Damages' in the case of Edwards adv. Epstein. The text presents legal arguments citing Florida statutes and case law (specifically Section 768.72) to establish that a formal evidentiary hearing is not required to amend a complaint for punitive damages, as a 'proffer' of evidence is sufficient. The document bears a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Edwards | Plaintiff |
Party in 'Edwards adv. Epstein'
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Defendant |
Party in 'Edwards adv. Epstein' (implied by case name)
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
Cited for legal precedent regarding punitive damages
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Source of the document (indicated by Bates stamp)
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the legal statutes and case law cited (Fla. Stat. §768.72, Middle District of Florida)
|
Relationships (1)
Case header: Edwards adv. Epstein
Key Quotes (2)
"a proffer of evidence in support of a punitive damage claim is sufficient and a formal evidentiary hearing is not required."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013396.jpg
Quote #1
"a 'proffer' according to traditional notions of the term, connotes merely an 'offer' of evidence and neither the term standing alone nor the statute itself calls for an adjudication of the underlying veracity of that which is submitted"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013396.jpg
Quote #2
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document