Philip Morris v. Williams – Overlawyered

Supreme Court grants certiorari in Philip Morris v. Williams (again)

Ted Frank — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:54:24 +0000

Oregon Supreme Court plays chicken with SCOTUS over $79.5 million punitive damages award in Williams v. Philip Morris case. [Sebok @ Findlaw; Krauss @ IBD; POL Feb. 1]

SCOTUS didn’t blink, and is reviewing the punitive damages award for a third time. As I’ve previously noted, the U.S. Supreme Court largely dodged questions about the constitutionality of punitive damages in the last iteration of Philip Morris v. Williams. The Oregon Supreme Court decision and certiorari petition puts the punted issue squarely back on the Court’s doorstep, though it will be possible for the Court to decide on narrower procedural grounds given the disingenuous argument for waiver. SCOTUSblog has the cert briefs in Docket No. 07-1216.

For more on this case, see the related posts below.

Update: SCOTUSblog is now reporting that the cert grant was limited to the first question presented: “Whether, after this Court has adjudicated the merits of a party’s federal claim and remanded the case to state court with instructions to ‘apply’ the correct constitutional standard, the state court may interpose~for the first time in the litigation–a state-law procedural bar that is neither firmly established
nor regularly followed.” There will thus be no reconsideration of the Gore or State Farm v. Campbell rules.

Tags: Oregon, Philip Morris v. Williams, punitive damages, Supreme Court, tobacco

Supreme Court grants certiorari in Philip Morris v. Williams (again) is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Buell-Wilson v. Ford redux

Ted Frank — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 11:37:14 +0000

In February of last year, I wrote at length about an appalling jury verdict (June 2004) and disingenuous appellate decision in an SUV rollover case:

It went generally unnoticed last November when the California Supreme Court refused to review an intermediate court’s decision in Buell-Wilson v. Ford Motor Co. But then again, it went generally unnoticed when a jury awarded an arbitrary $368 million in damages in that case, when the trial judge reduced that verdict to an arbitrary $150 million judgment, and when an intermediate appellate court reduced that figure to an arbitrary $82.6 million (which, with interest, works out to over $100 million).

The US Supreme Court remanded to consider in light of Philip Morris v. Williams. For whatever reason, the California Court of Appeals decision to be even more disingenuous and say “We don’t care about Williams” reaffirming the $82.6 million got much more attention. Bruce Nye has the best analysis of the “thumb in your eye” decision; Lisa Perrochet also analyzes the verdict. John Rohan is critical. Press coverage: Recorder/Law.com; San Diego Union-Tribune; Reuters; AP/SJ Mercury News. Ford will appeal.

Tags: autos, Buell-Wilson v. Ford, Ford Motor, Philip Morris v. Williams, punitive damages, San Diego

Buell-Wilson v. Ford redux is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

March 1 roundup

Ted Frank — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 09:22:23 +0000

Oregon Supreme Court plays chicken with SCOTUS over $79.5 million punitive damages award in Williams v. Philip Morris case. [Sebok @ Findlaw; Krauss @ IBD; POL Feb. 1]
Speaking of punitive damages, I did a podcast on Exxon Shipping v. Baker. I can’t bear to listen to it, so let me know how I did. [Frank @ Fed Soc]
Arkansas case alleged legal sale of pseudoephedrine was “nuisance” because meth-makers would buy it; case dismissed. [Beck/Herrmann]. This is why I’ve stockpiled Sudafed.
Lawyers advertise for refinery explosion victims before fire goes out. [Hou Chron/TLR]
Connecticut Supreme Court: cat-attack victim can sue without showing past history of violence by animal. [On Point] Looking forward to comments from all the anti-reformers who claim to oppose reform because they’re against the abrogation of the common law.
Op-ed on the Great White fire deep pockets phenomenon. [SE Texas Record; earlier: Feb. 2]
“FISA lawsuits come from Twilight Zone.” [Hillyer @ Examiner]
Legislative action on various medical malpractice tweaking in Colorado, Hawaii, and Wyoming. [TortsProf]
Request for unemployment benefits: why fire me just because I asked staffers for a prostitute? [Des Moines Register]
“So much for seduction and romance; bring in the MBAs and lawyers.” [Mac Donald @ City Journal; contra Belle Lettre; contra contra Dank]
Where is the Canadian Brandeis standing up for free speech? [Kay @ National Post]
In defense of lobbying. [Krauthammer @ WaPo]

Tags: Arkansas, Canada, chasing clients, Colorado, common law, Connecticut, deep pocket, Exxon, Exxon Shipping v. Baker, FISA, free speech, Hawaii, Heather Mac Donald, lobbyists, Oregon, Philip Morris v. Williams, pseudoephedrine, public nuisance, punitive damages, regulation through litigation, Rhode Island Station nightclub fire, roundups, Ted Frank, tort reform, unemployment benefits, Wyoming

March 1 roundup is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Chemerinsky on the Supreme Court

Ted Frank — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:57:44 +0000

Erwin Chemerinsky writes a not-especially honest review of the most recent Supreme Court term. He falsely characterizes the Roberts Court as “a solid conservative voting majority,” notwithstanding the numerous decisions where conservatives were not in the majority, or where the majority decision fell far short of conservative ideals. He characterizes the divided Philip Morris v. Williams decision as “conservative,” even though it was Breyer and Souter in the majority and Scalia and Thomas in the dissent. He complains that conservatives “defer to the government in the face of most claims of individual rights,” but gives no mention of last term’s Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Election Commission, where five conservative justices reasserted first amendment rights for political speech over the dissent of Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg, and Stevens, who wanted to preserve the government ban on speech. We’ll ignore that Chemerinsky takes the typical liberal tactic of characterizing legal rules as favoring either businesses or consumers/employees—we all know darn well that many “pro-business” legal rules favor consumers and employees as a group ex ante.

Chemerinsky is entitled to his left-wing opinion, though one might justifiably complain that he’s not entitled to his own facts. But what I certainly object to is the fact that this is being distributed and printed by the State Bar of California in the California Bar Journal, and advertised at the top of the State Bar of California website, since I am required to pay the California Bar hundreds of dollars a year, and have no way of getting a refund for the fishwrap mailed to me every month. This sort of partisan activity strikes me as a highly unethical use of my dues, and I hope someone in California is doing something about it.

(Earlier: Coleman; Bainbridge.)

Tags: California, Erwin Chemerinsky, Philip Morris v. Williams, politics

Chemerinsky on the Supreme Court is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

The Roberts Court and Liability Reform

Ted Frank — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:49:43 +0000

The latest AEI Liability Outlook explores my take on the tort reform implications of October Term 2006.

Tags: Liability Outlook, Philip Morris v. Williams, preemption, procedure, punitive damages, Supreme Court, Ted Frank

The Roberts Court and Liability Reform is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Major SCOTUS punitive damages ruling

Walter Olson — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:05:10 +0000

Some initial thoughts on Philip Morris v. Williams from Jim Copland at Point of Law. By a 5-4 vote, in an opinion by Justice Breyer, the Court held that a punitive damage award cannot be based in part or whole on a jury’s desire to punish harms committed against non-parties to the litigation, although (a fine distinction, if indeed a tenable one) such harms may be taken into account in determining the defendant’s degree of reprehensibility.

More: Ted comments and rounds up links, also at PoL. Roger Parloff (Feb. 20) calls the majority’s distinction “narrow” and “confusing”. And Eric Turkewitz offers one view from the plaintiff’s side (“hair-splitting”; majority’s “Clintonian parsing…was too much for four of the justices”).

Tags: Philip Morris v. Williams, punitive damages, Supreme Court, tobacco

Major SCOTUS punitive damages ruling is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Punitive damages and the Supreme Court

Ted Frank — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:04:44 +0000

I have written a piece on the Philip Morris v. Williams case for the Business and Media Institute. For other views, see Anthony Sebok (Brooklyn Law), Alan Morrison (Public Citizen), and Adam Cohen (New York Times). Morrison argues that the federal courts have no role in reviewing state-court decisions, which makes one wonder what his position is on habeas corpus. Cohen’s op-ed misstates what happened in Andrade, which was a case of collateral (and thus limited) review, rather than a direct appeal, like Williams, where a civil defendant does not even have the option of collateral review.

Earlier on Point of Law (from which this was cross-posted): Oct. 12; May 30; Feb. 2.

Update: The American Constitution Society press briefing on Philip Morris v. Williams (in which I participated with Peter Rubin, Neil Vidmar, and Bill Schultz) is now online.

Tags: Philip Morris v. Williams, procedure, punitive damages, Supreme Court, Ted Frank, tobacco

Punitive damages and the Supreme Court is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system