Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
D.C.
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Mass.
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
N.Carolina
N.Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
S.Carolina
S.Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
W.Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Law Firm Website Design Companies : The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly


The Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out a $79.5 million verdict against the Philip Morris tobacco company ruling that an Oregon court had acted improperly when it allowed jurors to use the award to punish the cigarette maker for jeopardizing the lives and health of smokers. In a 5-to-4 decision that marked the first major business ruling for the Court since the appointment of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the justices ruled that the Oregon court violated the Constitution's due process clause by awarding damages for general harm in a case brought by a single plaintiff. Roberts joined the majority opinion.

In the Oregon case, Mayola Williams, widow of Jesse Williams, a Portland janitor who died of lung cancer in 1996, sued Philip Morris, maker of Marlboros, the brand of cigarette her husband had smoked for 45 years. The jury awarded Williams $821,000, then added a $79.5 million punitive award. Philip Morris, which is now owned by Altria Group, had denied that its cigarettes were addictive, and lawyers for Williams' estate had told jurors to consider the damage done to other smokers in Oregon in their verdict.

In Tuesday's ruling, the justices countered that the Oregon court should not have allowed consideration of any harm done to smokers, except Williams.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the majority, said the Constitution bars courts from using punitive awards to penalize companies for injuries they inflict upon others who are "essentially, strangers to the litigation."

Robert S. Peck, the Washington lawyer who represented Mayola Williams, told the Washington Post that the Supreme Court decision "slays a dragon that didn't exist," and predicted that further litigation in Oregon would "reaffirm" the jury's punitive verdict. Peck noted that contrary to the justices finding, the jury had based the award on Philip Morris' profitability and not on the number of victims harmed by smoking.

Exactly how the jury reached the award amount remains unclear and that uncertainty was a key factor in the decision of the high court to overturn the punitive award and send the case back to Oregon for further litigation.

Despite the court's refusal to use the case to set a firm limit on how much can be awarded in punitive damages, as some in the business community had hoped, Tuesdays ruling is being viewed as not only a victory for Philip Morris, but for corporations weary of what they view as run-away punitive awards in state courts.

The New York Times reports that in a note to investors, Christopher R. Growe, an analyst at A. G. Edwards and Sons hailed the ruling as "a positive," that "effectively limits the size of punitive damages in future cases."

Roberts and Bryan were joined in the majority opinion by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter and Samuel A. Alito. Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Writing for the minority, Stevens said he had no doubt that earlier Supreme Court decisions limiting punitive awards were correct, but said the Oregon case was different because that state's supreme court had "faithfully applied the reasoning in those opinions to the egregious facts disclosed by this record...no procedural error even arguably justifying reversal occurred at the trial in this case."


Legal News | Breaking News | Terms & Conditions | Privacy | Law Firm Web Design, Attorney Website Design by Law Promo

ⓒ Breaking Legal News. All Rights Reserved.

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by BLN as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case.
   More Legal News
   Legal Spotlight
   Exclusive Commentaries
   Attorney & Blog - Blog Watch
   Law Firm News  1  2  3  4  5  6 
   Lawyer & Law Firm Links
San Francisco Trademark Lawyer
San Francisco Copyright Lawyer
www.onulawfirm.com
New Rochelle Accidents Attorneys
New Rochelle Personal Injury
www.kboattorneys.com
Chicago Business Lawyer
Cook County Contract Law
www.rothlawgroup.com
Canton Criminal Lawyer
Canton DUI lawyer
www.cantoncriminalattorney.com
Surry County Criminal Defense Lawyers
Yadkin County Family Law Attorneys
www.dirussolaw.com
Oregon DUI Law Attorney
Eugene DUI Lawyer. Criminal Defense Law
www.mjmlawoffice.com
Houston Car Accident Attorneys
Wrongful Death Attorneys Houston
Houston Wrongful Death
New York Adoption Lawyers
New York Foster Care Lawyers
Adoption Pre-Certification
www.lawrsm.com
Santa Ana Workers' Compensation Lawyers
www.gentryashtonlaw.com
Indianapolis personal injury lawyer
Brain injury lawyer Indianapolis
www.rwp-law.com
Eugene Bankruptcy Attorney
Bankruptcy Attorney Eugene
willamettevalleybankruptcy.com
Lorain Elyria Divorce Lawyer
www.loraindivorceattorney.com
Denver, Colorado Drug Crimes Lawyer
www.vanlandinghamlaw.com
   More Legal News  1  2  3  4  5  6
   Legal News Links
  Click The Law
  Daily Bar News
  The Legal Voice
  The Legal Report
  Legal News Post
  Crisis Legal News
  Legal News Journal
  Law Firm Logos
  Attorney Web Design
  Immigration Law Web Design
  Law Firm Directory