On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Oregon
Jump to full article: SCOTUSBlog, 2008-04-23
Intro: 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 » |