Forum
U.S. Supreme Court
Case Status
Decided
Docket Number
05-1256
Term
2006 Term
Oral Argument Date
October 31, 2006
Questions Presented
1. Whether, in reviewing a jury's award of punitive damages, an appellate court's conclusion that a defendant's conduct was highly reprehensible and analogous to a crime can "override" the constitutional requirement that punitive damages be reasonably related to the plaintiffs harm.
2. Whether due process permits a jury to punish a defendant for the effects of its conduct on non-parties.
3. Whether, in reviewing a punitive award for excessiveness, an appellate court is permitted to give the plaintiff the benefit of all conceivable inferences that might support a finding of high reprehensibility even if the jury made no such specific factual findings.
Case Updates
Supreme Court addresses punitive damages, reprehensible conduct & harm to non-parties
February 20, 2007
Following the approach outlined in NCLC’s brief, the Supreme Court concluded that subjecting defendants to punitive damages awards for conduct not directed at the parties before the court was a violation of due process.
U.S. Chamber files amicus brief
July 28, 2006
This case was the first punitive damages case to be heard by the Supreme Court since its 2003 landmark decision in State Farm v. Campbell. As urged by NCLC, the Supreme Court granted review of an Oregon Supreme Court decision to clarify whether juries may impose punitive damages for conduct that occurred to others not before the court. The court also agreed to consider whether extraordinary reprehensibility of the alleged conduct could nullify the single digit ratio limitation provided in State Farm.
In this case, the Oregon Supreme Court upheld a massive punitive damages award of $79 million against Philip Morris for “harm[ing] a much broader group of Oregonians” than the individual plaintiff who brought the suit. In its brief, NCLC argued the state court, by basing a punitive damages award on harm to non-parties, denied Philip Morris its due process rights to defend hypothetical claims against itself. NCLC also argued that punitive damages should bear a reasonable relationship to the compensatory damages awarded, and that the jury should use a ratio guidepost to calculate any extra damages.
Cert. petition granted
June 05, 2006
U.S. Chamber urges Supreme Court to review punitive damages, reprehensible conduct & harm to non-parties
May 01, 2006
NCLC urged the Supreme Court to grant review of an Oregon Supreme Court decision to clarify whether juries may impose punitive damages for conduct that occurred to others not before the court. In this case, the Oregon Supreme Court upheld a massive punitive damages award of $79 million against Philip Morris for “harm[ing] a much broader group of Oregonians” than the individual plaintiff who brought the suit.
Case Documents
- Philip Morris USA v. Williams (NCLC Brief Supporting Cert., 2006 Term).pdf
- Philip Morris USA v. Williams (NCLC Brief on Merits, 2006 Term).pdf