Humanities desk
< January 29	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 30[edit]

Gladstone and tea[edit]

"If you are cold, tea will warm you; if you are too heated, it will cool you; If you are depressed, it will cheer you; If you are excited, it will calm you." is a quotation widely attributed to William Gladstone. I haven't been able to pin down a definitive source though. Can anyone here help? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest mention that I could find is in The Musings of a Scottish Granny p. 99 (1936) by Ishbel Hamilton-Gordon, Marchioness of Aberdeen and Temair. Her husband, John Hamilton-Gordon, 1st Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair, helped in Gladstone's election campaigns and here is an account of when Lord and Lady Aberdeen entertained the Gladstones to an elaborate dinner at Haddo House in 1884. Lady Aberdeen prefaces the quotation with "He used to say...", which suggests that he may not have committed the aphorism to paper. Alansplodge (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dinner at Haddo House, 1884 by Alfred Edward Emslie

On the other hand Mrs Catherine Gladstone: 'A Woman Not Quite of Her Time' by Janet Hilderley (2014), prefaces the quote with "He wrote with some feeling...", but no footnote or citation (wouldn't pass muster on Wikipedia I fear). Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jury award[edit]

Very often someone wins a lawsuit and receives a huge damage award from the jury (whether that is good or bad depends on your sympathies, so we'll ignore that question). There is invariably an appeal and even when the verdict itself is upheld, the damage award seems to always get chopped to a fraction of what the jury decided. Again that can seem unfortunate depending on the case, but it's a frequent occurence either way.

E. Jean Carroll was just awarded $83.3 million in a verdict against some orange haired guy, and she currently all over the TV talking about what she is going to do with the money. Is this particular verdict somehow likely to escape the appellate level shrinkage? It seems a bit premature. Not seeking speculation but wondering if there is some concrete legal aspect peculiar to the case, that somehow protects the award. Thanks. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:2034 (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC) Added: hmm, TV chyron now says Carroll award was decided by the judge rather than by a jury. Maybe that makes a difference. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:2034 (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Gibson's Bakery v. Oberlin College, the damages amount was immediately reduced by the trial judge due to provisions of Ohio law, but the remaining amount was not reduced at the appellate level, and Oberlin ended up paying that amount, plus interest, three years later. AnonMoos (talk) 09:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was definitely the jury that ordered the defendant to pay this specific amount in damages, so I guess the chyron was about the presiding judge deciding not to use their power to reduce the amount for being unreasonable. Perhaps Ms. Carroll, not certain if she will actually see this amount (whether being reduced on appeal or by insolvency of the defendant), is using the opportunity to begin the difficult task of reputation repair. We are not allowed to CRYSTALBALL, but straightforward extrapolation of the defence strategy and the defendants behaviour leads one to think that appellate reduction is not to be expected. --Lambiam 10:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that this award was for the orange guy's continued defamation of Ms. Carroll after having previously been found liable and fined for virtually identical statements, I would say that there is little reason to expect any judge to reduce the award. This entire case was based on the fact that a lower fine didn't make him stop. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will Orange Man appeal? We don’t know, and should not speculate (per WP:CRYSTAL). Will the amount be reduced if appealed? Again, we do not know and should not speculate. We can report on what has happened, but not on what might (might not) happen. Blueboar (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think he has already said he will. And it's his standard procedure to appeal on anything that goes against him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only possible way Trump can be appealing. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [reply]

From what I've read, he is going to have a hard time finding grounds to appeal, though, because his lawyer raised almost no objections during the trial. - Jmabel | Talk 04:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He'll find a way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Various commentators I've heard have suggested that punitive part of the award at only 3.5x compensatory might stand e.g. [1] [2]. LegalEagle also seem to suggest a similar thing although I won't link to it for BLP reasons (not Trump but his lawyer). Note that a lot of these reduced damages cases you're thinking of likely involve punitive damages a lot higher compared to the compensatory. I haven't seen so much comment on appealing the fairness of the compensatory damages. I'm not sure why but it might be because this is more difficult to challenge in cases like this where there's no clear way to decide what's fair. As per the point above, I'm not sure how well his lawyer did at challenging what the opposing lawyer was proposing for the compensatory damages. I'd imagine as with the other issues, if she didn't properly challenge aspects of it during the trial, she might have killed any chances of challenging them on appeal. Edit: I added another source which does suggest appealing the punitive damages is the most like aspect of an appeal that could bear fruit. Nil Einne (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s far more fun to speculate about “what will I do with $83.3 million dollars,” than it is to speculate about “what will I do with whatever-the-last-appeal says I’m supposed to get except-Orangeman-never-pays-his-bills.” DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]