Before we launched this blog, I wouldn’t have thought that the topic of punitive damages had a lot of humor potential. But in the past six months we’ve stumbled across a few instances of punitive-damages-related humor, including this cartoon and this set of dinner plates commemorating notable punitive damages cases. (At least I hope those were supposed to be funny.) And now, to add to the collection, is this Jerky Boys prank phone call posted on YouTube. Those of you familiar with the Jerky Boys may be wondering if this is safe for work. Surprisingly, it is.

Directorship Magazine has released its annual “State Litigation Guide,” which it describes as “The annual boardroom guide to the litigation climates in all 50 states.” Among other things, the guide focuses on each state’s propensity for imposing large amounts of punitive damages.

According to the survey, the 10 best states are:

1. Tennessee
2. Utah
3. Indiana
4. Ohio
5. North Dakota
6. North Carolina
7. Nebraska
8. Virginia
9. Michigan
10. South Dakota

The 10 worst states are:

1. Illinois
2. West Virginia
3. Rhode Island
4. Pennsylvania
5. California
6. Florida
7. Montana
8. New York
9. Maryland
10. Alabama

West Virginia businesses will no doubt be pleased that their state is only the second worst, which is actually an improvement over other similar studies.

Hat tip: TortsProf Blog.

A few months ago, an Alabama jury awarded $40 million in compensatory damages and $175 million in punitive damages against AstraZeneca (the maker of Nexium and Crestor). Today, the San Jose Mercury News is reporting that the trial judge in that case has reduced the punitive damages down to $120 million, but left the rest of the award intact. That brings the ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages down to three-to-one, but AstraZeneca will undoubtedly argue on appeal that the maximum amount of punitive damages is $40 million, citing the language in State Farm v. Campbell that supports the imposition of a one-to-one limit in cases with “substantial” compensatory damages.

We previously blogged about Adidas’s successful trademark infringement suit against Collective Brands (owner of Payless Shoes), in which Adidas won a verdict of nearly $305 million, including $137 in punitive damages.

Now Bloomberg.com is reporting that Adidas is pursuing a similar claim against Wal-Mart. Adidas predicts that the punitive damages award against Wal-Mart will exceed the award against Payless, because the jury won’t take kindly to the fact that Wal-Mart repeatedly promised not to mimic Adidas’ designs but did so anyway.

The case against Wal-Mart is pending in the same courthouse where the Payless case was decided. Presumably, if Adidas wins, Oregon will once again come calling for its 60 percent share of the punitive damages.

No, I’m not kidding. Jose Klein, a Harvard law student who makes decorative dinner plates in his spare time, is selling a set of plates commemorating six famous punitive damages decisions:

Day v. Woodworth (the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1851 decision validating the concept of punitive damages in a trespass action)

Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. (the Ford Pinto case, which is near and dear to our hearts not just because its a California decision, but because Horvitz & Levy founding partner Ellis Horvitz represented the plaintiff on appeal)

BMW v. Gore (who knew that Dr. Ira Gore’s repainted BMW would lead to the recognition of constitutional restrictions on the amount of punitive damages?)

Kemezy v. Peters (Judge Posner’s rejection of the California rule that requires plaintiffs to present evidence of the defendant’s net worth in order to obtain punitive damages)

Romo v. Ford Motor Co. (another California punitive damages case involving Ford, 22 years after Grimshaw; instead of representing the plaintiffs, this time our firm represented amici for the defense in the California Court of Appeal, the Cal. Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court)

Philip Morris v. Williams (the ongoing saga of an Oregon punitive damages award that made its way back onto the U.S. Supreme Court docket just this week)

You can collect all six punitive damages plates (part of the “Learned Handmade Plates” line) for the low low price of $100.00. Act now while supplies last!

Hat tip: Above the Law.

This story from the Rocky Mountain News reports that plaintiffs who won a massive judgment against Dow Chemical and Rockwell International (see our prior posts here and here) don’t expect to collect any of it. Said one of the plaintiffs, “I’m realistic. If you got a dollar you’d be lucky. You don’t count on it.”

The plaintiffs’ skepticism is warranted. In our experience, appellate courts heavily scrutinize these kind of jackpot awards. Often, a close review of the record in these cases indicates that the awards lack a solid legal foundation, and that the large award is more a reflection of the passions and emotions of the jurors than any legitimate legal basis. I certainly don’t have any data to back this up, but it seems that awards of this size have a greater likelihood of being vacated altogether (as opposed to merely being reduced), whereas more modest awards are more likely to survive appellate scrutiny. That’s true in most jurisdictions anyway, but perhaps not in West Virginia.

As we previously reported, Rockwell International and Dow Chemical Company were whacked for $350 million in a case brought by landowners who claimed that contamination from the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons facility reduced their property values. The judgment included punitive damages of $111 million against Dow and $89 million against Rockwell, plus an award of interest dating back to 1990, which could bring the total judgment to more than $900 million.

The Denver Post now reports that, “The ruling in the 18-year-old case was stayed by[Judge] Kane to give Dow and Rockwell time to appeal.” That certainly helps avoid one major stumbling block faced by defendants hit with mega-awards – how to bond the judgment to stay enforcement pending appeal. The Post also reports that the defendants “were indemnified by the federal government in the case, meaning taxpayers will ultimately pay any judgment and the companies’ legal fees.” Ouch. Interestingly, these other reports about the case don’t mention the indemnity angle (though they mention that Boeing is liable for Rockwell’s portion of the judgment because Boeing acquired Rockwell).

Marc Alexander and William M. (Mike) Hensley of Adorno Yoss Alvarado & Smith have launched a blog called California Attorney’s Fees, with a mission to: “provide a resource tool to practitioners, jurists, and the public about the law governing attorneys’ fees/costs awards, but focused on the law and pragmatic experiences in California state or California federal judicial forums.” The blog launched in May and is off to a roaring start, with a steady stream of informative and thoughtful posts.

Hat tip: UCL practitioner.

Yesterday we blogged about Merck’s appellate victories in two Vioxx cases that involved large punitive damages awards. Mark Lanier, the plaintiff’s lawyer in the Texas case, has issued a press release suggesting that he lost because the “activist” appellate justices were swayed by campaign contributions: “This decision was handed down by a group of judges who regularly accept campaign contributions from law firms representing corporations that appear in their courts. We will appeal this decision to the United States Supreme Court if necessary.”

Hat tip: WSJ Law Blog.

Update: Ted Frank at Overlawyered has some harsh words for Mark Lanier. Frank suggests that Lanier may have violated the Texas rules of professional conduct when he implied that campaign contributions from law firms influenced the appellate court to rule in Merck’s favor.

We recently blogged about the West Virginia Supreme Court’s decision not to review a case involving a $404 million judgment, including $270 million in punitive damages, against energy company NiSource Inc. According to the Charleston Gazette, Chesapeake Energy, a co-defendant in that case, is so angry with the denial of review that it is canceling its plans to build a new $30 million headquarters in Charleston. A company vice president said in an official statement: “While we hold a less significant amount of the liability in the verdict, we do believe it sends a profoundly negative message about the business climate in the state. The reality of this decision is that nobody in West Virginia, similarly situated, has a guaranteed right of appeal in the judicial system.”

This has all taken place after West Virginia placed dead last in a national survey of corporate lawyers about the reasonableness of each state’s tort liability system. Now we know at least one company exec who isn’t going to change his vote any time soon.