Click here to read SCOTUSblog’s preview of the Williams III oral argument. We will post a link to the transcript of the oral argument as soon as we can.
-
Cornell Previews Williams III Argument
The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in the latest incarnation of Philip Morris v. Williams (Williams III) next week, on December 3. Cornell University Law School’s Legal Information Institute previews the oral argument, summarizing both side’s contentions. (See this post for links to all the briefs.)
Note: the LII lists two issues presented for review, but the Supreme Court has expressly limited its grant of certiorari to the first issue.
-
Plaintiff’s Amicus Briefs in Williams III Now Available Online
We previously posted links to the petitioner’s brief on the merits and supporting amicus briefs in Philip Morris v. Williams (Williams III), as well as the respondent’s brief on the merits. The amicus briefs for the plaintiff/respondent are now available (via the ABA):
Brief for Federal Procedure Scholars in Favor of Respondent
Brief for the Oregon Trial Lawyers Association in Favor of RespondentTo recap, the issued presented in Williams III is:
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.
The case will be argued December 3.
-
Plaintiff Files Merits Brief in Williams III
The plaintiff/respondent in Philip Morris v. Williams (Williams III) has filed her brief on the merits. You can view the brief on the ABA’s website here. Links to the petitioner’s brief on the merits and supporting amicus briefs can be found in this post.
To recap, the issued presented in Williams III is:
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.
The case will be argued December 3.
-
U.S. Supreme Court Schedules Oral Argument in Williams III for December 3
According to the U.S. Supreme Court’s monthly argument calendar for the month of December, 2008, the Court will hear oral arguments in Philip Morris v. Williams (Williams III) on December 3, 2008.
To recap, the issued presented in Williams III is:
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.
See our prior post for links to the opening brief on the merits and the various amicus briefs in support of the petitioner.
Hat tip: SCOTUSblog.
-
The First Batch of Merits Briefs in Williams III Available Online
Philip Morris and its amici have filed the first batch of briefs on the merits in Philip Morris v. Williams (Williams III). (Click here for our prior post about the grant of certiorari in Williams III. The post contains the issued presented.)
Links (via the ABA):
Philip Morris’s opening brief on the merits.
Amicus brief of Pacific Legal Foundation in support of petitioner.
Amicus brief of National Association of Manufacturers in support of petitioner.
Amicus brief of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in support of petitioner.
Amicus brief of Associated Oregon Industries in support of petitioner.
Amicus brief of Washington Legal Foundation in support of petitioner.
Amicus brief of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in support of neither party.
Note on terminology: I have been referring to this case as Williams II, even though it’s actually the third time the case has been before the Supreme Court. The first time around the Court simply GVR’d the case without an opinion. The second time around the Court issued an opinion. To me, it makes sense to call the first opinion Williams I and call this case Williams II, since it will generate the second Supreme Court opinion. But several of the briefs linked above refer to the first Supreme Court opinion as Williams II and this case as Williams III. To minimize confusion, I’ll adopt that same terminology from now on.
-
California Supreme Court Grants Review in Buell-Wilson v. Ford
The California Supreme Court has granted Ford’s petition for review in Buell-Wilson v. Ford Motor Co. (See the Supreme Court’s online docket.) As you’ll recall, that’s the case in which the California Court of Appeal reaffirmed a $55 million punitive damages award even after the US Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeal’s prior opinion affirming the same award, and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Philip Morris v. Williams (Williams II).
The California Supreme Court’s online docket indicates that the merits briefing will be deferred pending the disposition of another case, but it doesn’t identify the other case. We assume the other case is Philip Morris v. Williams (Williams III), currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, but it’s possible the other case may be Roby v. McKesson, pending in the California Supreme Court. We’ll provide an update when more information is available.
You can view our prior posts on Buell-Wilson here. You can also read Ford’s petition for review, Buell-Wilson’s answer to the petition, Ford’s reply, and our amicus letter on behalf of the American Chemistry Council (in which we suggested that the Supreme Court should either grant review outright or grant review and hold the case pending the disposition of Roby).
UPDATE: (at 5:59 PM): The Supreme Court’s online docket for Buell-Wilson has been updated to clarify that briefing in Buell-Wilson is deferred pending the disposition of Williams III.
-
California Supreme Court Denies Plaintiffs’ Petition for Review in Holdgrafer v. Unocal
The California Supreme Court has denied the plaintiffs’ petition for review in Holdgrafer v. Unocal. (This is the case in which the Court of Appeal reversed a $5 million punitive damages award and ordered a retrial on punitive damages. See our prior posts on Holdgrafer here.)
Justices Werdegar and Corrigan were absent and did not participate. See the court’s online docket.
Holdgrafer was one of three published California opinions issued this year interpreting the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2007 opinion in Philip Morris v. Williams (Williams II). The California Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ petitions for review in the first two (Holdgrafer and Bullock v. Philip Morris) but has not yet ruled on the defendant’s petition for review in the third case (Buell-Wilson v. Ford Motor Co.).
-
Ford Files Reply in Support of Petition for Review in Buell-Wilson
Ford has filed a reply in support of its petition for review to the California Supreme Court in Buell-Wilson v. Ford. That’s the case in which the California Court of Appeal reaffirmed a $55 million punitive damages award even after the US Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeal’s prior opinion affirming the same award and remanding the case for reconsideration in light of Philip Morris v. Williams (Williams II).
You can view our prior posts on Buell-Wilson here. You can also read Ford’s petition for review, Buell-Wilson’s answer to the petition, and our amicus letter on behalf of the American Chemistry Council.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on the petition is due by June 27. The court holds its case conferences on Wednesdays, so we can expect the court to issue a ruling on June 18th or June 25th. You can track the status of the case on the court’s online docket.
-
“Punishment Defanged: How the United States Supreme Court Has Undermined the Legitimacy and Effectiveness of Punitive Damages”
Heather R. Klaassen, a law student at Washburn University School of Law, has written this Comment on Philip Morris v. Williams (Williams II) for the Washburn Law Journal: “Punishment Defanged: How the United States Supreme Court Has Undermined the Legitimacy and Effectiveness of Punitive Damages.” (No link is available but the citation is 47 Washburn L.J. 551.)
The comment blasts the U.S. Supreme Court’s punitive damages decisions as misguided, and calls on the Court to abandon this line of caselaw entirely. Klaassen says the Court has undermined the traditional fact-finding role of the jury; has adopted guideposts for evaluating the excessiveness of punitive damages that “have little relationship to the facts of the case;” has undermined the power of state courts to punish and deter; and, in Williams, adopted a “semantic distinction between punishment-for-harm and punishment-for-reprehensibility that has no substantive or evidentiary value.” She blames the Supreme Court’s mistakes on the Justices’ “desire to shape political decisions.” Other than that, she thinks the Supreme Court is doing a great job!
UPDATE (on 6/17/08): An anonymous reader left a comment informing us that the article is now available on the Washburn University School of Law’s website. Thanks for the tip!