Tobacco.org

Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Williams  

Issue: Whether the Supreme Court of Oregon, on remand from the Court’s 2007 decision on the constitutionality of a $79.5 million punitive damages award based on harms done to non-named plaintiffs, improperly asserted a state law procedural bar having the effect of precluding Phillip Morris from asserting a constitutional claim. . . .

* Amicus brief of the Chamber of Commerce (in support of the petitioner)

* Amicus brief of the Washington Legal Foundation and Allied Educational Foundation (in support of the petitioner)

* Amicus brief of Associated Oregon Industries, et al. (in support of the petitioner)

* Amicus brief of the Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc. (in support of the petitioner)

Jump to full article »

RASOR: Oregon tobacco trials a critical step 

On January 31ist, the supreme court of Oregon agreed to hear, once again, appeals from Tobacco giant Phillip-Morris. At stake is seventy nine and a half million dollars, the tidy sum in damages awarded to the widow of lifetime smoker Jesse Williams.

At issue is the near impunity with which big Tobacco navigates the murky waters of the American legal system. A 2005 case leveled against amalgamated big tobacco by the US Justice department was crippled by a faction within the Justice department. Sharon Eubanks, the prosecutor in that case told the Washington Post on March 22nd, 2007 that her case, and the justice is represented for the American smoker, was hamstrung by politics. . . .

According to a June 6th Reuters article, roughly ten thousand Florida cases of similar content are waiting in the wings for Williams' widow to get paid. As soon as she does, this will trigger a flood of cases against Tobacco for negligence in reporting the dangers associated with their product. By giving our support to consumer protection alliances, hopefully a dint in the legal bulwark of big industry can be made.

This will only be true if Williams is paid, however. It is up to the Oregon supreme court to use this case to increase private citizens ability to reprimand huge corporations for misbehavior.

Jump to full article »

Former justice: Philip Morris case may define punitive damages law 

Former longtime Oregon Supreme Court Chief Justice Edwin Peterson said in a telephone interview that the U.S. justices just may use the Oregon case "as a vehicle to more fully develop the law on punitive damages."

He noted for the last 15 to 20 years the laws surrounding punitive damages have been "in an state of uncertainty."

"The Supreme Court of the United States may also be concerned that the Supreme Court of Oregon is not following the law laid out in its earlier decisions," said Peterson, who teaches pre-trial civil litigation at Willamette University College of Law in Salem, Ore.

Jump to full article »

Merit Briefs for Unscheduled Supreme Court Cases, Term 2007-2008 (ABA Division for Public Education) 

Amicus briefs

* Brief for the Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., in Support of Petitioner

* Brief for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America in Support of Petitioner

* Brief for Former Commissioners and Senior Staff of the Federal Trade Commission in Support of Petitioner

* Brief for the Washington Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioner

* Brief for the National Association of Manufacturers in Support of Reversal

Jump to full article »

Altria Gets High Court Hearing on $79.5 Million Award (Update4) 

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments for the second time from Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA unit, the country's largest cigarette maker, on a $79.5 million award in an Oregon smoker lawsuit.

The decision to hear the company's appeal averts, at least for now, what would be a record payment in an individual smoker case. The award to a smoker's widow has grown to more than $140 million with interest.

Philip Morris and its corporate allies say lower courts around the country are ignoring Supreme Court rulings putting limits on punitive damages. In the latest case, the justices will decide whether an Oregon court, reconsidering the case on orders from the Supreme Court, improperly relied on a state-law ground in reaffirming the award.

The Oregon court ruling ``is symptomatic of the disregard that some state courts show for precedents of this court that protect the rights of locally unpopular defendants against arbitrary punitive damages awards,'' the U.S. Chamber of Commerce argued in a court filing.

Jump to full article »

No. 07-1216 PHILIP MORRIS USA v.MAYOLA WILLIAMS - BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF PRODUCT LIABILITY ADVISORY COUNCIL, INC. IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS (PDF) 

This Court remanded to the Oregon Supreme Court to permit that court to "apply. the standard we have set forth." ld. Because application of the correct standard "may lead to the need for a new trial, or a change in the level of the punitive damages award," this Court did not "consider whether the award is constitutionally ’grossly excessive."’ Id.

On remand, the Oregon Supreme Court addressed only the trial court’s failure to give an instruction on the issue of harm to nonparties. Williams v. Philip Morris Inc., 344 Or. 45, 176 P.3d 1255 (2008)("Williams H’). It decided that the proposed jury instruction at issue was flawed for reasons "we did not identify in our former opinion," and that for these "other reasons" the trial court did not err in refusing to give that instruction. Id. at 48, 176 P.3d at 1257. With respect to the excessiveness of the award, the Court simply "reaffirm[ed] our prior opinion in all respects."

Jump to full article »

No. 07-1216 PHILIP MORRIS USA v.MAYOLA WILLIAMS - BRIEF OF WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION AND ALLIED EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER (PDF) 

This Court’s prior ruling could not have been more clear--the due process clause "forbids a State to use a punitive damages award to punish a defendant for injury that it inflicts upon nonparties.., who are, essentially, strangers to the litigation." Philip Morris, 127 S, Ct. at 1063. Moreover, this Court held that the Due Process Clause "requires States to provide assurances that juries are not asking the wrong question," and in the process punishing defendants for harm to those strangers. Id. at 1064. That proposition was presented to this Court by petitioner after being rejected on the merits by not only the Oregon Supreme Court, but also the Oregon Court of Appeals (twice) and the trial court. Instead of faithfully applying this Court’s ruling on remand, however, the Oregon Supreme Court invoked a novel procedural rule--for the first time in nine years of this litigation--to avoid remedying the constitutional infirmities identified by this Court.

It is a fundamental and bedrock principle of American jurisprudence that the United States Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of cases or controversies that come before it.

Jump to full article »

No. 07-1216 PHILIP MORRIS USA v. MAYOLA WILLIAMS - BRIEF IN OPPOSITION (PDF) 

Philip Morris asks this Court to take up the second question presented in its prior application, which this Court chose not to resolve last Term. The question is no more necessary to resolve at this time.

The "conflicts" identified by Philip Morris are insubstantial. Oregon has demonstrated it is fully capable of employing the "ratio" analysis as part of gross excessiveness review, and the punitive damages awarded in this case comport with this Court’s jurisprudence.

To claim deep division over the ratio factor, Philip Morris cites two intermediate state court decisions that upheld ratios larger than single digits. Pet. at 33-34. Their mere existence in the fact-sensitive inquiry that punitive-damage review involves does not merit a need for this Court’s guidance. Philip Morris makes no attempt to evaluate the factual circumstances of the misconduct in the cases it cites.

Instead, they advance a theoretical revision of this Court’s punitive damage review jurisprudence.

Jump to full article »

U.S. justices to review tobacco award  

One can assume that Jesse Williams, a simple man who served in the U.S. Army in the early 1950s and then worked as a janitor in Portland, Oregon, never dreamed his name would be uttered in the United States Supreme Court. But on Monday, the justices agreed to review, for the third time, a case involving the death of Williams, a longtime smoker, from lung cancer. . . .

The Oregon court ruling was "symptomatic of the disregard that some state courts show" for United States Supreme Court precedents that protect "locally unpopular defendants against arbitrary punitive-damages awards," the United States Chamber of Commerce argued in a court filing, according to Bloomberg News.

But Mark Gottlieb, director of the Tobacco Products Liability Project of the Public Health Advocacy Institute, based at Northeastern University School of Law in Boston, offered a different perspective. "While the further delay in resolving this case comes as a disappointment to the Williams family, the significance of the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari on the size of the punitive damages gives trial and appellate judges critically important guidance on the limits of punitive damages against cigarette companies," Gottlieb said in a statement.

Jump to full article »

No. 07-1216 PHILIP MORRIS USA v. MAYOLA WILLIAMS - PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI (PDF) 

The Constitution does not require a “one size fits all” approach to application of the ratio guidepost. But the current level of conflict and confusion on the ratio question in the lower courts is intolerable. The bottom line is that the guidepost is not being applied in any principled or predictable manner. The Oregon Supreme Court’s doctrinal holding—that the reasonable- relationship requirement can be “overridden” whenever the jury could have found the defendant‘s conduct to be highly reprehensible—only adds to that disarray. The need for review of that holding is no less pressing now than it was when the Court granted certiorari on this issue two years ago.

Jump to full article »

• 07-1216 PHILIP MORRIS USA V. WILLIAMS (PDF) 

This Court then remanded the case to the Oregon Supreme Court with directions to “apply the [constitutional] standard we have set forth.” Ibid. On remand, however, the Oregon Supreme Court refused to follow this Court’s directive. Instead, the Oregon court “adhered to” the judgment that this Court had vacated because it found that Philip Morris had procedurally defaulted under state law and thereby forfeited its claim of federal constitutional error. . . .

The questions presented—the second of which was accepted for review but not reached when this case was last before the Court—are:

1. 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.

Jump to full article »

• Docket for 07-1216 

Jun 9 2008 Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition for certiorari.

Jump to full article »

• Court reopens punitive damages case 

In stepping back into the dispute, the Court declined to hear Philip Morris’ new constitutional challenge to the size of the punitive verdict. Instead, the Court limited its review to the Oregon Supreme Court’s latest ruling, scuttling Philip Morris’ challenge because of a legal defect it found in the trial. Even so, the case does pose a significant constitutional conflict between the Supreme Court’s authority to have its rulings applied, and a state court’s authority to manage its own state procedural rules. The tobacco company appeal contends that the state court defied the Supreme Court’s most recent ruling, a clear victory for Philip Morris — that is, until the case got back to state court. The new appeal is Philip Morris USA v. Williams (07-1216). . . .

The state court said in its new ruling that the trial judge did not err in refusing to give the proposed instruction, because it was flawed, misstating state law on two aspects of punitive damages. It said its prior ruling upholding the punitive award still stood, since the Supreme Court had told the state court only to reconsider the failure to give the instruction that Philip Morris had proposed on awards to “strangers” to the lawsuit. The flaw in the instructions, it said, provided an adequate and independent state law basis for upholding the verdict.

Jump to full article »

• Court will again hear Portland widow's case 

A battle between a Portland janitor's widow and the world's largest cigarette maker is headed back to the nation's highest court. . . .

Anthony Sebok, a professor at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York, said he had little doubt that the Supreme Court took the case to overturn it.

"I think the Supreme Court feels -- rightfully so -- that the state Supreme Court acted in an inappropriate fashion," Sebok said.

But other court-watchers are less certain of what the court will do.

Howard Bashman, a Pennsylvania appellate lawyer who runs "How Appealing," a popular legal blog, said many observers expected the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the case outright on Monday.

Instead, it will hold a hearing in the fall and probably rule next year.

"I view this as an indication that it's not an open-and-shut case," Bashman said.

Jump to full article »

U.S. Supreme Court takes $79.5 million cigarette award appeal 

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning agreed for the third time to take an appeal of an Oregon $79.5 million punitive damage verdict against the world's largest cigarette maker.

The nation's highest court -- the final word on legal cases -- had twice sent the suit back to Oregon.

But it didn't provide specific instructions about what to do. And in each case, the Oregon Supreme Court decided that the verdict should stand.

The latest decision highlights a longstanding tension between the U.S. Supreme Court and state courts over the size of punitive damage awards. . . .

In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court again overturned the verdict, this time on the grounds that a faulty jury instruction deprived Philip Morris of its constitutional rights.

Oregon's highest court earlier this year decided that the verdict could stand because Philip Morris had effectively forfeited its right to appeal the jury instruction.

Jump to full article »