http://www.tobacco.org/newsfeed/lawsuit/williams.rss Latest top tobacco news headlines en-us http://www.altria.com/download/pdf/williams_brief_08132008.pdf http://tobacco.org/news/272101.html Philip Morris proposed a jury instruction that correctly stated the federal standard, and also made clear at the charge conference its position on the federal issue. That was sufficient to invoke its constitutional right. The Oregon Supreme Court’s novel application of a requirement that the proposed instruction be “correct in all respects”—an application completely divorced from the rule’s purpose— reflects the type of “pointless severity” that this Court has held inadequate to bar federal claims. . . . The trial court considered each paragraph of Requested Instruction 34 independently, and it rejected the paragraph on harms to non-parties on the merits because it believed, erroneously, that the instruction was not required by federal law. Accordingly, the outcome would have been exactly the same had Philip Morris submitted that paragraph by itself on a separate page. State courts cannot require litigants to engage in “arid ritual[s] of meaningless form” in order to preserve their federal claims. Beyond this, the requirement imposed below is the antithesis of the “firmly established and regularly followed state practice” that can bar a federal claim. . . . III. As this Court recognized, Philip Morris properly requested protection from the risk of punishment for harms to non-parties. And the trial court infringed Philip Morris’s federal constitutional rights by rejecting that request. The only adequate remedy for this constitutional violation is a new trial. A remittitur of the punitive award to the maximum amount permissible under the Constitution cannot cure the error, because a properly instructed jury might well have awarded less than the constitutional maximum. The Oregon courts should now be directed to award Philip Morris a new trial. Altria Group, Inc. Wed, 13 Aug 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.altria.com/media/03_06_03_04_06_williams.asp http://tobacco.org/news/272094.html In January 2008, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Oregon Court of Appeals' June 2004 decision, which in turn, upheld the jury's compensatory damage award and reinstated the jury's award of $79.5 million in punitive damages. In March 2008, PM USA filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which was granted in June 2008. Briefing before the United States Supreme Court is ongoing. Altria Group, Inc. Tue, 07 Oct 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1003/p02s01-usju.html http://tobacco.org/news/271980.html One case that may prove particularly revealing involves the murky area of punitive damages. . . . In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the Oregon jury in her case had impermissibly held tobacco company Philip Morris responsible for harms to a wider group of smokers beyond just the plaintiff's late husband. The case was sent back to the Oregon Supreme Court to reduce the amount of the award to a level commensurate with harm to a single smoker. Instead, the Oregon Supreme Court once again upheld the $79.5 million award, basing its decision this time on a state law provision never considered by the US Supreme Court. "The Roberts court has twice vacated a $79.5 million punitive damages award only to have the Oregon Supreme Court twice thumb its nose at the Supreme Court and defiantly reinstate that award," says Robin Conrad of the National Chamber Litigation One case that may prove particularly revealing involves the murky area of punitive damages. The high court has agreed for the third time to examine an Oregon jury's award of $79.5 million to the widow of a lifelong smoker. Center. "Despite the Supreme Court's effort at curbing outrageous jury awards, rogue state courts like Oregon's supreme court continue to look for new loopholes." Thus, the stage is set for what may become a fiery judicial showdown between the nation's highest court and Oregon's highest court. Ultimately the case may reveal more about how the Supreme Court views its relationship to state court judges than how the excessive punitive damages issue should be resolved, analysts say. Christian Science Monitor Fri, 03 Oct 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/us/05scotus-box.html?_r=1&ref=washington&oref=slogin http://tobacco.org/news/271973.html Among the biggest cases so far: _Efforts by drug makers and tobacco companies to limit consumer lawsuits under state law. . . . _A third try at resolving a punitive damages award to a smoker's widow. . . . In the tobacco case, Altria Group Inc. is fighting state suits over allegedly deceptive advertising of "light" and "low-tar" cigarettes. By June, Supreme Court terms often look very different than they do at their start. The court could rule on the constitutionality of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act and the president's authority to seize and detain people in the United States as enemy combatants, indefinitely and without facing criminal charges. Perhaps the biggest news that could emerge from the court _ other than deciding the outcome of the presidential election _ would be the announcement of a retirement. New York Times Sat, 04 Oct 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.cjlf.org/cases/pending.htm http://tobacco.org/news/271850.html Philip Morris v. Williams (Filed: 8/20/08) CJLF filed a brief in this U.S. Supreme Court smoking liability case because it turns on a procedural issue that also arises in federal court review of state criminal convictions. The Oregon Supreme Court held that Philip Morris had lost its federal claim of excessive damages by not using the procedure required by state law to preserve the claim. Philip Morris says the state court ruling was a departure from the previous understanding of the rule and therefore cannot be used to block its federal claim. CJLF's brief supports neither party on the merits of the case but asks the high court to establish a simple, clear standard in this confused area of law. Criminal Justice Legal Foundation Wed, 01 Oct 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_07_1216/ http://tobacco.org/news/271845.html Facts of the Case Mayola Williams sued the tobacco giant, Philip Morris, in Oregon state court following her husband's death from lung cancer in 1997. Ms. Williams claimed that her husband had been convinced by Philip Morris' advertisements and representations that smoking did not pose any significant health risks and had refused to quit smoking despite his family's pleas. Oyez Project Tue, 09 Sep 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.onthedocket.org/cases/2008/philip-morris-usa-v-williams http://tobacco.org/news/271843.html Docket Number 07-1216 Date Granted 06/09/2008 Oral Argument Wed, 12/03/2008. . . . The Supreme Court has agreed to review a $79.5 million punitive damages judgment against Philip Morris for the third time. Jesse Williams was a devoted husband and father who worked as a school custodian in Portland, Ore. He began smoking Marlboro cigarettes in his early twenties. Over the next 47 years, he developed a three pack-a-day habit, ignoring the large amounts of evidence compiled in that time that documented tobacco's hazardous health effects. The undeniable proof for Williams, unfortunately, came in the form of an inoperable lung cancer diagnosis. Six months later, he was dead. He was 67. On the Docket j-doppelt@northwestern.edu Mon, 09 Jun 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalDecember2008.pdf http://tobacco.org/news/271617.html Wednesday, December 3 07-1216 PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. V. WILLIAMS Supreme Court of the United States Mon, 08 Sep 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Philip_Morris_USA%2C_Inc._v._Williams http://tobacco.org/news/267391.html 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) SCOTUS Wiki Sat, 21 Jun 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.easternecho.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?32279 http://tobacco.org/news/267265.html 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. Echo Online webmaster@easternecho.com (Tom Rasor / Staff Writer) Tue, 17 Jun 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/213365-former-justice-philip-morris-case-may-define-punitive-damages-law http://tobacco.org/news/266707.html 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. Legal NewsLine csrizo@hotmail.com (Chris Rizo) Tue, 10 Jun 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/unscheduled.html http://tobacco.org/news/266680.html 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 ABA Journal Tue, 10 Jun 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aHaYQzL.vZpg&refer=us http://tobacco.org/news/266679.html 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. Bloomberg News gstohr@bloomberg.net (Greg Stohr) Mon, 09 Jun 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/07-1216_cert_amicus_plac.pdf http://tobacco.org/news/266671.html 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." SCOTUSBlog Wed, 23 Apr 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/07-1216_cert_amicus_wlf.pdf http://tobacco.org/news/266670.html 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. SCOTUSBlog Wed, 23 Apr 2008 04:00:00 GMT