Upon additional reflection, it seems likely that the recent Supreme Court decision concerning the constitutional pitfalls of punitive damages awards, Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 127 S.Ct. 1057 (2007), signals the end of class actions for punitive damages.
Even before Williams, the great bulk of recent precedent had concluded that aggregation of punitive
We did a short post on December 14, 2006, noting Professor Richard Nagareda’s new article, “FDA Preemption: When Tort Law Meets the Administrative State,” in the first issue of the new Journal of Tort Law. We agree with some parts, and disagree with others, of the article. But here’s a suggestion implicit in the
Consider an under-utilized vehicle for changing venue in state court cases.
Suppose your client faces two individual product liability cases filed in state court in Cook County, Illinois. The client is then named in a class action raising similar claims filed — and properly venued — in one of the downstate courts that the American
Illinois, the Land of Lincoln, is also quite well known for abusive class action practice, including though by no means limited to certification of “drive by” class actions in certain downstate counties. We’ve also practiced in Cook County, and that venue can be tough on defendants too.
But things have been looking up in Illinois
We don’t know where it will go – if anywhere – but the majority’s discussion of due process and the right to present available defenses potentially could sweep much more broadly than just in the punitive damages context. On page 5 the majority state:
[T]he Due Process Clause prohibits a State from punishing an individual
The recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure added several provisions to address electronic discovery issues. One provision — Rule 26(b)(5)(B) — allows a party that produces privileged or protected information to notify the opposing party of the claim and, after that notification, the receiving party must “promptly return, sequester, or destroy the
Now we’ve read it, and we’re applauding. The Supreme Court spoke loud and clear today in Williams v. Philip Morris USA, No. 05-1256 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2007). It ruled that for a jury “to base that award [of punitive damages] in part upon his desire to punish the defendant for harming persons who are
We don’t often try to “scoop” news sources in this blog. We’re not reporters, and we have the practice of law competing with this blog for our time.
But the U.S. Supreme Court handed down this morning, within the last hour or so, its decision reversing and remanding a $79.5 million punitive damage award against
Yesterday’s New York Times offers an article questioning whether juries should be empowered to award punitive damages in civil cases. The article highlights a recent case in which a jury awarded $246 million to a woman who was paralyzed in an accident involving a Ford Explorer.
We’re delighted to see this topic once again making
FDA insiders have aptly described the agency as a large, slow-moving animal that bleeds profusely when injured. That’s why the FDA so frequently finds itself in the public eye.
But who injures the animal, and why?
For a fairly long time now, the FDA had not been particularly visible. Recently, that changed.
The Democrats in