Philip Morris – Another Take on The Stevens Dissent

On Friday I wrote about the death of the 9-1 punitive damage ratio that defendants like to claim exists, in: Philip Morris Punitive Damages Decision — Why It Was Good For Plaintiffs. I focused on the Stevens dissent and also discussed Breyer’s commentary at oral argument.

Today, Anthony Sebok at FindLaw takes a more in-depth look on the same subject with:
The Supreme Court’s Decision to Overturn a $79.5 Punitive Damages Verdict Against Philip Morris:
A Big Win, But One With Implications That May Trouble Corporate America

  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

  1. Philip Morris $79.5M Punitive Award Reinstated By Oregon High Court
  2. Philip Morris Punitive Damages Decision — Why It Was Good For Plaintiffs
  3. Punitive Damages Again Before Supreme Court (Philip Morris v. Williams, Round 3)
  4. Court Tosses Philip Morris Verdict, And Further Confuses Punitive Damages Issue
  5. Stevens Convicted (I Was Wrong)

Tags:

February 27, 2007 · No Comments ·

No Responses Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.