Bonjorno et al. v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. et al.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case involved a dispute over the appropriate interest rate to be applied to a judgment awarded in favor of Bonjorno and others against Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. The central issue was whether post-judgment interest should accrue from the date of the original jury verdict or from the date when damages were recalculated following an appeal. The Supreme Court held that, under federal law, post-judgment interest begins to accrue on judgments only after they are properly entered by a court clerk. Therefore, it ruled that such interest should start accruing not from the initial jury verdict but rather from when damages were recalculated and formally recorded as part of an amended judgment entry.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Marshall and Justice Stevens, dissented in part. The dissent argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 1961 of Title 28 was incorrect regarding post-judgment interest on a judgment against Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. They contended that the statute should be read to allow for interest from the date of entry of judgment rather than from any subsequent modification or amendment. This interpretation would ensure consistency with historical practices and legislative intent, which aimed to compensate plaintiffs fully for delays in payment without providing defendants an opportunity to benefit financially from such delays through procedural maneuvers.