Opinion ID: 1330717
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Schwartz, L. Magarian, Forming Guidelines Out of Vagueness: How State Courts Can Implement Haslip, 2, 6 (Draft, under review for publication in State Court Journal.)

Text: Professor Schwartz also said: [I]t would be wiser ... for state judges to appreciate the spirit as well as the somewhat vague letter of Haslip .... [The U.S. Supreme Court] was restricting states' rights and the creative ability of state judges and legislators to clean up the punitive damages mess and render the system fair. If states are responsive to this message, the Court is unlikely to intervene again. If they are not we can expect more Supreme Court cases ... in this important area of state law. Id. at 19, 20. At least two courts have taken the U.S. Supreme Court seriously and have cited Haslip in overturning punitive damages awards. See Mattison v. Dallas Carrier Corp., 947 F.2d 95 (4th Cir.1991); Alexander & Alexander, Inc., et al. v. B. Dixon Evander & Assoc., Inc., 88 Md.App. 672, 596 A.2d 687 (1991). See also Bradley v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., 471 N.W.2d 670 (Minn.Ct.App.1991). The Supreme Court of Nevada, however, cites Haslip as a wholesale endorsement of punitive damages. See Republic Ins. Co. v. Hires, 107 Nev. 317, 810 P.2d 790 (1991). It is not! We must remember that although Haslip may not have created the clear, bright-line rules that we would all like, it is the beginning of national common law development in this area and not the end. We believe that in Haslip, the U.S. Supreme Court has set out guidelines governing punitive damages awards as it has in the other areas of the national law discussed above. But, we understand as well as the next court how to imitate the intermediate appellate court of Texas in Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil, Co., 729 S.W.2d 768 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1987), articulate the correct legal principle, and then perversely fit into that principle a set of facts to which the principle obviously does not apply. [5] Even judges who are remarkably dim bulbs know how to mouth the correct legal rules with ironic solemnity while avoiding those rules' logical consequences.