PAPER CHASE NEWSBURSTDigest RSS feedFull RSS feed
Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective.


Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Supreme Court overturns Philip Morris $80M punitive damages award
Jeannie Shawl at 10:18 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] handed down decisions in three cases Tuesday, including Philip Morris USA v. Williams [Duke Law case backgrounder; JURIST report], where the Court overturned a $79.5 million punitive damages verdict against Philip Morris USA [corporate website]. The Oregon Supreme Court last year upheld a jury award of nearly $80 million [opinion text; JURIST report] in punitive damages against the company because it found the marketing tactics of Philip Morris were "reprehensible." The Supreme Court ruled 5-4, however, that a punitive damages award based "in part on [a jury's] desire to punish the defendant for harming persons who are not before the court (e.g., victims whom the parties do not represent) ... amount[s] to a taking of "property" from the defendant without due process." The Court did not decide whether the damages award was constitutionally "grossly excessive," but instead vacated the Oregon decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. Read the Court's opinion [text] per Justice Breyer, along with a dissent [text] from Justice Stevens, a second dissent [text] from Justice Thomas and a final dissent [text] from Justice Ginsburg. AP has more.

In Lawrence v. Floria [Duke Law case backgrounder; JURIST report], the Court ruled 5-4 that 28 USC 2254 [text] does not suspend the one-year statute of limitations for seeking federal habeas corpus relief from a state court judgment while a certiorari petition is pending before the Supreme Court. Read the Court's opinion [text] per Justice Thomas, along with a dissent [text] from Justice Ginsburg. AP has more.

Finally, in Weyerhaeuser v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber [Duke Law case backgrounder], the Court held that the same standard applies to predatory-bidding claims under Section 2 [text] of the Sherman Act as to predatory-pricing claims. The Court addressed predatory pricing - reducing the price of a product to put competitors out of business - in its 1993 decision in Brooke Group v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. [text]. In its Tuesday decision, the Court overturned a lower court ruling [PDF text] from the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and ruled that Brooke Group's standard should also be applied to predatory bidding - the practice of buying goods at higher prices to put them out of a competitors' reach. Read the Court's unanimous opinion [text] per Justice Thomas. AP has more.



Link | |  | print | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | Facebook page

For a one-stop snapshot of the latest legal news that matters, with breaking documents, new legal videos, live law-related webcasts, commentary by expert law professors and more - all updated through the day in real time, with no ads and no registration barriers - visit JURIST's homepage and check back often...


LATEST LEGAL NEWS

 Iran court sentences ex-VP for role in post-election unrest
11:45 AM ET, November 22

 Rights group says Israel-Palestinian conflict claimed almost 9,000 lives in twenty years
10:30 AM ET, November 22

 DOJ dropping charges against Blackwater guard involved in 2007 Iraq shootings
9:40 AM ET, November 22

 click for more...

Get JURIST legal news on your intranet, website, blog or news reader!

LATEST FORUM

A Risk Worth Taking: Civilian Trials for Guantanamo Terror Suspects

L. Friedman/ V. Hansen
New England School of Law

ABOUT

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.

CONTACT

Paper Chase welcomes comments, tips and URLs from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@pitt.edu