US Supreme Court Docket

Supreme Court Docket

[Download January 12, 2008 Argument Calendar PDF]

Many documents listed on this page are PDF files that may be viewed using AdobeReader.

Philip Morris USA v. Williams
No. 07-1216

Title:

Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Mayola Williams

Subject:

Punitive Damages, Constitutional Law, Civil Procedure

Question:

When this case was last before it, this Court reversed the decision of the Oregon
Supreme Court and held that due process precludes a jury from imposing punitive
damages to punish for alleged injuries to persons other than the plaintiff. Philip
Morris USA v. Williams, 127 S. Ct. 1057, 1065 (2007). 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. App., infra, 22a.

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.

2. Whether a punitive damages award that is 97 times the compensatory
damages may be upheld on the ground that the reprehensibility of a defendant’s
conduct can “override” the constitutional requirement that punitive damages be
reasonably related to the plaintiffs harm.

Decisions:

• Supreme Court of Oregon Opinion Filed: January 31, 2008

Resources:

• Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.

Briefs:

Coming Soon

Counsel of Record

For Petitioner:

Andrew L. Frey
Mayer Brown LLP
New York, NY

For Respondent:

Robert S. Peck
Center for Constitutional Litigation, P.C.
Washington, DC

 

Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Unscheduled | Previous Terms

 

To view PDF files listed on this page you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader