Document: 509 U.S. 443 113 S.Ct. 2711 125 L.Ed.2d 366 TXO PRODUCTION CORP., Petitionerv.ALLIANCE RESOURCES et al. No. 92-479. Argued March 31, 1993. Decided June 25, Syllabus* In a common-law slander of title action in West Virginia state court, respondents obtained judgment against petitioner Production Corp. for $19,000 actual damages and $10 million punitive damages. Accepting respondents' version disputed issues fact, the record shows, inter alia, that knew respondent Alliance Resources had good to oil gas development rights at issue; acted bad faith by advancing claim on those basis worthless quitclaim deed an effort renegotiate its royalty arrangement with Alliance; anticipated gross revenues from development—and therefore amount royalties sought renegotiate—were substantial; was large, wealthy company; engaged similar nefarious activities other parts country. affirming, State Supreme Court Appeals, among things, rejected TXO's contention award violated Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment as interpreted Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 1, 111 1032, 1. Held: The is affirmed. 187 W.Va. 457, 419 S.E.2d 870 (1992), Justice STEVENS, joined THE CHIEF JUSTICE BLACKMUN, concluded Parts II III did not violate substantive component Clause. Pp. ____. 1 (a) With respect question whether particular so "grossly excessive" Clause, Waters-Pierce Oil Texas (No. 1), 212 86, 111, 29 220, 227, 53 L.Ed. 417, this need not, indeed cannot, draw mathematical bright line between constitutionally acceptable unacceptable would fit every case. It can be said, however, general concern reasonableness properly enters into constitutional calculus. See U.S., 18, S.Ct., 1043. Although parties' desire formulate "test" understandable, neither proposed rational standard nor heightened scrutiny satisfactory. 2 (b) case due process. dramatic disparity controlling character. On record, jury may reasonably have determined set out malicious fraudulent course win back, either whole or part, lucrative stream it ceded Alliance. certainly but light millions dollars potentially stake, faith, fact scheme part larger pattern fraud, trickery, deceit, wealth, cannot said beyond power allow. 3 JUSTICE, KENNEDY, Part IV procedural process arguments—that adequately instructed, reviewed trial appellate no advance notice might allowed return such large rely potential harm must rejected. first argument addressed presented passed below, remaining arguments are meritless. 4 KENNEDY plurality's "reasonableness" formulation unsatisfactory, since does provide which compare punishment malefaction gave rise it. A more manageable inquiry focuses money awards reasons doing so. When reflects bias, passion, prejudice jury, rather than deterrence retribution, Constitution has been violated, matter what absolute relative size award. case, when viewed whole, demonstrates place great weight evidence deliberate wrongful conduct, makes probable verdict motivated legitimate deterrence. 5 SCALIA, THOMAS, that, although "procedural process" requires judicial review reasonableness, there federal right substantively correct determination. If were secret repository unenumerated right, surely also contain subjected excessive fines, render Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines superfluous. gives courts business area, except assure (i.e., traditional procedure) observed. Since instructed purposes under law, court petitioner's claims fail. 6 J., announced delivered opinion, REHNQUIST, C.J., joined, I IV. filed opinion concurring judgment. judgment, joined. O'CONNOR, dissenting WHITE, SOUTER, II-B-2, II-C, III, 7 Carter Phillips, Washington, DC, petitioner. 8 Laurence Tribe, Cambridge, MA, respondents. 9 STEVENS BLACKMUN join, joins 10 title, we granted certiorari decide violates Amendment, because product unfair procedure. 11 * August 23, 1985, (TXO) commenced litigation filing complaint Circuit McDowell County, Virginia, declaratory removing cloud interest rights. Respondents, including (Alliance), counterclaim went before 1990. favor, affirmed Appeals appropriate accept fact. 12 1984, geologists employed recovery surface 1,002.74 acre tract land known "Blevins Tract" extremely profitable. They strongly recommended TXO—a company production 25 States—obtain develop resources Blevins Tract. 13 Those then controlled Alliance.1 Prodded geologists, approached considered " 'phenomenal offer.' 462, 870, 875 (1992). pay $20 per cash, 22 percent royalties, all costs. April 2, accepted offer, agreeing assign Tract TXO. property, agreed consideration paid if attorney "title failed."2 14 Shortly after agreement signed, attorneys discovered 1958 conveying certain mineral Tug Fork Land Company, predecessor Alliance, coal operator named Leo J. Signaigo, Jr., who later conveyed Hawley Coal Mines had, turn, reconveyed them Crews Company (Virginia Crews). Interviews representatives Crews, established parties understood only mine involved transactions; none claimed any Moreover, text made "perfectly clear" grantor reserved "all underlying" Tract.3 15 advised "distinct possibility probability" "leasehold fails" July 1985.4 meantime, despite knowledge created "frivolous,"5 two attempts lend substance claim. First, unsuccessfully trying convince gas, $6,000 whatever recorded without advising Alliance.6 Second, attempted induce Mr. Signaigo execute false affidavit indicating included 16 12, having recording deed, wrote asserting objection implying well acquired Crews. arranged meeting arrangement. negotiations unsuccessful, litigation. According "knowingly intentionally brought frivolous action" "real intent" "to reduce payments lease," thereby "increas[e] rights."7 17 decided written submissions. motion prohibit introducing expert extrinsic concerning meaning itself unambiguous. found asserted virtue App. 15, "nullity."8 18 subsequently tried jury. addition advanced arrangement, introduced showing own wholly owned subsidiary even company;9 substantial;10 dealings Id., 468-470, S.E.2d, 881-883. 19 jury's based Alliance's cost defending action. fair infer evidence. 20 support motions notwithstanding remittitur, argued Counsel contended "general damage instruction given left their devices yardstick reasonable And reason, vagueness, lack guideline requirement relationship injury award, essence, cause should aside Constitutional grounds."11 response, counsel waived, misconduct particularly egregious,12 excessive. denied appealed.13 21 appeal, assigned three primary errors: (1) existed evidence; (2) Rules Evidence admission testimony lawyers States show intent; (3) our (1991), Appeals' recent decision Garnes Fleming Landfill, Inc., 186 656, 413 897 (1991). disposed state-law issues.14 discussion issue describing kinds defendants whom awarded Haslip.15 Turning facts stated application "reasonable relationship" test required consider these factors: 23 "(1) actions could caused; maliciousness actions; penalty necessary discourage undertaking endeavors future." W.Va., 476, 889. 24 held each factors supported stating: "The type undertaken victims. As reprehensibility say already believe says twice length. Just important, magnitude continuing practice trickery deceit." Ibid. (emphasis original). 26 We certiorari, 506 ----, 594, 121 532 now affirm. 27 argues award—an 526 times greater jury—is deemed arbitrary deprivation property law. 28 correctly points several opinions imposes limits "beyond penalties go." Seaboard Air Line R. Seegers, 207 73, 78, 28, 30, 52 108 (1907). St. Louis I.M. & S.R. Williams, 251 63, 66-67, 40 71, 64 139 (1919); Standard Indiana Missouri, 224 270, 286, 32 406, 411, 56 760 (1912).16 Southwestern Telegraph Telephone Danaher, 238 482, 35 886, 59 1419 (1915), actually imposed telephone ground "plainly oppressive" 491, 888.17 earlier fixing unlawful conduct unless "the fines grossly law." 417 (1909). While "unabashedly" denigrate cases "Lochner-era precedents,"18 they overlook Justices dissented Lochner opinions.19 More importantly, do dispute proposition limit Brief Respondents 17. contend, same reviewing economic legislation. 30 TXO, hand, scrutinized strictly legislative typically assessed guidance expressing elected community.20 urges apply form scrutiny, step "objective" criteria determine presumptively notions "fundamental fairness" inherent concept Relying heavily plurality Schad Arizona, 501 2491, 115 555 'history widely shared [are] concrete indicators fundamental fairness rationality require,' Petitioner 15-16 (quoting Schad, supra, 2501 (plurality opinion) examine, fairness, upheld jurisdiction, jurisdictions, decisions (4) prior associated compensatory awards. 16.21 Under framework, "exceeds bounds contemporary historical orders magnitude," id., original), struck down "compelling particularized justification" size.22 31 determining understandable. Nonetheless, find standard, apparently serve deterring punishing how acceptable. reject premise underlying invocation scrutiny. arbitrariness legislation significantly different. Still, assume safeguards counterpart members impartial sit, assessment collective deliberation adversaries, judge heard testimony, unanimous Appeals. Assuming procedures followed, entitled strong presumption validity. Indeed, persuasive suggesting irrebuttable, see 24-40, ---- - (SCALIA, judgment), virtually so, 40-42, (KENNEDY, judgment). Nor persuaded reliance proper follow. have, course, relied history "widely practice" guide departs norm violative process, 2501-2503 (slip op., 13-17), term imprisonment circumstances cruel unusual punishment, Solem Helm, 463 277, 290-292, 103 3001, 3009-3011, 77 637 (1983). question, utility comparative approach assessing unconstitutional. 33 relatively straightforward task intrajurisdictional interjurisdictional comparisons matters definition first-degree murder (Schad ) nonviolent repeat offenders (Solem ). drawing regard juries. Such numerous, sometimes intangible, factors; imposing make qualitative host unique Because truly identical, meaningful difficult make. Cf. 41-42, analysis useful considering permitting juries factor, defendant's out-state status, process.23 analytical skeptical. Thus, while rule might, one many relevant considerations, prepared enshrine constitutionality 34 end, then, Co., Terms ago Haslip: "We say, [a] concer[n] . enter[s] calculus." And, echo Haslip once again, mind turn Clause.24 submission excessive," places emphasis over notes long "exemplary bear some proportion real sustained."25 four damages, noted "may close line" permissibility. 1046. Following decision, observed "a damages." 668, 909. 36 That relationship, mentioned opinion. Earlier example: 37 "For instance, man wildly fires gun crowd. By sheer chance, injured pair glasses. thousands teach duty care. allow impose substantial order future acts." 661, 902 (citing C. Morris, Punitive Damages Tort Cases, 44 Harv.L.Rev. 1173, 1181 (1931)). 38 identified instructions reflected example. said: 39 "Punitive likely occur occurred. caused situation slight harm, small. grievous, much greater." 909 added). Taking account result calculating consistent views expressed supra. endorsed standards Alabama previously announced, "whether occurred," 21, 1045 41 both Courts eschewed concentrates entirely intended victim plan succeeded, possible victims resulted behavior deterred. "could victims."26 argue finding share projected full amounted $5 $8.3 million, depending wells developed.27 Even figures exaggerated—as persuasively argues, Reply 9-12—the believed seeking multimillion dollar reduction obligation. making closing stressed, vast tremendous financial gains hoped achieve through "elaborate scheme." argued: 42 "They wouldn't gone elaborate scheme—No, now, thought huge, gonna huge money-making lease. Gonna puts lots That's why worth scheme. it, wealth." 23a. 43 Echoing theme, "You go going well. better was. But, see, got caught up submit you, saying that's here. But regardless was, operation back May, June, year produce lot money." Tr. 748-749. 45 stresses shocking shock dissipates considers loss respondents, terms reduced eliminated payments, succeeded illicit value "potential harm" $5.0 closer $4 $2 $1 view, "jar one's sensibilities." 46 sum, petitioner, wealth,28 47 fundamentally procedure calculation. decline address below. 48 differed adequate 6, n. 1037, significant respects. authorized take wealth perpetrator" recognition effective require fine upon means ordinary circumstances."29 additional compensation subjected." 29, 49 agree wrongdoer increased risk influenced corporations, special defendant nonresident. understand reference "additional compensation." note, referred "financial position" factor taken note squarely aspects Appellant 20281 (W.Va.Sup.Ct.), p. 44-48,30 possibly permit wealth.31 attack highest State, Bankers Casualty Crenshaw, 486 77-80, 1645, 1650-1651, 100 62 (1988), pass 50 criticizing judge's he articulate his upholding He did, give hearing postverdict motions, during colloquy indicated appraisal egregious character executives. always helpful judges explain rulings thoroughly efficient despatch duties, characterize failure denial remittitur violation. 51 Petitioner's criticism largely Court's colorful classes "really mean" stupid" defendants. played little, any, evaluation propriety evident reasoning thorough succinctly summarized passages quoted. separately disassociate themselves terminology rest merits. 484, 895 (McHugh, concurring). careful attention precedents, Garnes. Finally, merit followed "was unconstitutionally vague" divorced Wells Smith, 171 97, 105, 297 872, 880 (1982), liable plaintiff damages.32 event, satisfied law fairly response egregiously tortious conduct. 24, 1046, 12. Prior elsewhere, unquestionably 54 ordered. 55 concur statement holds awarding fulfilled am agreement, requirements excessive." Ante, approaches ante, ____, replacement, focus quoting 1043, improvement. To ask begs question: relation what? answer tortfeasor correct, unhelpful, still bereft employing comes relying nothing subjective reaction deciding Constitution. This review, far meaningful, law-like restraints excess, become fickle designed superintend. Furthermore, illusion certainty where exists, and, doing, intervention prevent unjust 57 suggested before, 41, 1054 identifies multiple awards; amounts, ratios, quirks specific jurisdictions. Rather, guarantee individual citizen secure irrational deprivations property. O'CONNOR observing implementing principle, often looked indication prejudice, post, sole, necessarily most sign. Other objective indicia discussed plurality, direct ascertaining stripped party way accordance requires. 58 suggests conformance perceives degree threatened ----. provides foundation concluding rational. commonplace See, e.g., Jackson 307, 99 2781, 61 560 (1979). Unlike legislature, whose judgments predicated educated guesses grounded adduced hearing, Heller Doe, --- 2637, 2643, (1993); FCC Beach Communications, 508 2096, Vance Bradley, 440 93, 939, 949-950, (1979), bound arriving evidence, argument, regarding permitted basis. look explanations stand. facts, difficult; plausible court's instructions, explained raw, redistributionist impulses stemming antipathy wealthy, out-of-state, corporate defendant. There is, another explanation verdict, courts, persuades me sufficient confidence unjustified improper record: malice. negligence, strict liability, respondeat superior. committed, senior officers, intentional tort title. demonstrated acted, words, "pattern deceit" "unsavory practices" respondent. 477, 467, 890, "[T]he shows isolated incident part—a mere excess zeal poorly supervised, low level employees—but defraud coerce positions unequal bargaining power." 468, 881. 60 respects represents odd tort, deliberate, goals confess feeling disquiet affirming prejudice. ample willful case; lawsuits accusing misdeeds; respondent's informed suffer Compared argumentation, dominates trial, subtler appeals out-of-state status lesser importance. involving vicarious liability present different issues. here, unfair, arbitrary, seizure THOMAS joins, Traditional American governing imposition more. Mut. 1041-1042, (1991); 26-27, follows, my difficulty joining 63 join explicit implicit existence so-called "substantive reasonable, ____.1 willing textual limitation procedure, incorporates guarantees specified Bill Rights; sorts other, unenumerated, rights—however fashionable (even sort here) time Lochner-era relies upon, imagine "due contains superfluous Fifth Amendment. (as do) determination—which tries today. Procedural requires, certain, sufficiency sustain civil jury-awarded (including pain suffering); (or least yet claimed) determination right. So too, think, damages: not. 65 Today's reprise divergent produced, waste. approved ____ opinion), less detailed restrictive 19-23, ever invent new requirements, will deviate ones ought govern. disposition 'constitutional sensibilities' resistant 'jar[ring],' 1043), imagined Haslip. 4-to-1 ratio "constitutional impropriety," 23-24, 1046; today -to-1 passes muster—calculating very generously, suffered, opinion). 66 valuable, majority challenges henceforth simply observation "this worse TXO." further, shut door leaves slightly ajar. 27-28, legislatures authority eliminate perceived "unfairness" regime, frequently exercised years. 39, 1060-1061; Attorney General Amici Curiae 14-17 (collecting statutes cases); National Association Securities Commercial Law Attorneys Amicus 16-30 (same). continued assertion some, almost-never-usable, damages" clumsy medium serves spawn wasteful litigation, incentives institutions society undertake task. 67 WHITE SOUTER IV, dissenting. 68 promise receive restore rapidly becoming oppressive system. Today renders Haslip's one. converted commercial inadequate. Rather producing founded verifiable criteria, produced monstrous history. Worse, challenge cursory analysis, being stupid," mean." 474-475, 887-889 similarly refused "and agents servants failed gentlemen." 875. tolerate cavalier stake. award's principles articulated respectfully dissent. 69 Our system justice entrusts jurors—ordinary citizens training law—with profoundly important determinations. Jurors matters, consequences great, criminal cases, liberty perhaps life hangs balance. abiding longstanding tradition text, Const. Art. § Amdts. 7, sound considerations democratic theory. guarantor bulwark tyranny, source civic values. W. Blackstone, Commentaries *379-*381; 40, 1055 judgment); Olson, Litigation Explosion 175 Hyman Tarrant, Aspects Trial Jury History, System America 27-28 (R. Simon ed. 1975). 70 jurors infallible guardians public good. shaped influences impermissible justice. susceptible judges. H. Kalven Zeisel, 497-498 (1966) ("The stimulus moves yield perennial amateur, layman quickly domesticated official role tradition; remains accessible stimuli exclude"). Arbitrariness, caprice, malice replace reasoned decisionmaking. Modern systems incorporate influences. Careful deliberations. diligently supervise proceedings, watchful sources error. stand ready overturn efforts ensure failed. 71 usual machinery functions well, ensuring engine oppression imposition. explained, "[e]lements whim caprice predominate reaches consensus counsel, presentation judge, subject courts." (opinion nonetheless. 72 especially true area vague amorphous guidance. told punish deter, rarely effectuate limiting exist. inadequate, clear heightens arbitrariness, bias dispassionate verdict. 43, (O'CONNOR, dissenting); judgment) ("[T]he generality contribute predictability"); Browning-Ferris Industries Vermont, Inc. Kelco Disposal, 492 257, 281, 109 2909, 2923, 106 219 (1989) (Brennan, concurring) (Such "skeletal" "scarcely all," creating review); Smith Wade, 461 88, 1625, 1656, 75 632 (1983) (REHNQUIST, dissenting) (elastic applicable "giv[e] free reign biases prejudices juries"). commentator explained: 73 "Like everyone else system, deserve rules decision. Deprived fixed landmarks guideposts, us distracted, on, befuddled point best guess reliable." 175. 74 surprise about 'run wild,' inexplicable passion. 9-12, 1043 (discussing Gertz Robert Welch, 418 323, 350, 94 2997, 3012, 789 (1974) ("[J]uries assess unpredictable amounts bearing caused"). Influences antithetical fixture ("A returned biased prejudiced doubt process"). Of easy matter. necessity, impeach quite limited. Tanner United States, 483 107, 117-121, 127, 107 2739, 2746-2748, 2751, 97 90 (1987); Wright A. Miller, Federal Practice Procedure 2810, pp. 71-72 (1973); Tidd, King's Bench Common Pleas *908-*909. nonetheless, inference proof. result, common England traditionally strike appeared disproportionate bias.1 Nation well.2 New Hampshire emphasized importance century ago, interfere "is absolutely safe administration justice, ought, exercised." Belknap Boston Maine N.H. 358, 372 (1870). Accord, Gough Farr, Y. 479-480, 148 Eng.Rep. 759, (Ex. 1827) (Vaughan, B.) ("It essential exercise salutary control Juries" requiring retrial indicates "acted improperly, misconception facts"); 478-479, Eng.Rep., 759-760 (Alexander, L.C.B.) (Where influence undue motives, misconception, interfere"); Travis Barger, Barb. 614, 629 (N.Y.1857) (reciting Lord Ellenborough's view "if given, compared laid error subject, second jury"); Flannery Baltimore Ohio D.C. (1885) (When disproportionate, "we feel interfere"). 76 Judicial critical function ancient principle observed—that proportionate offense. observed, proportionality "deeply rooted repeated jurisprudence." 284-285, 3006-3007, Le Gras Bailiff Bishop Winchester, Y.B.Mich. Edw. II, pl. (C.P.1316) reprinted Selden Society 3, (1934) (amercement vacated bailiff ordered "take moderate amercement manner offence"); First Statute Westminster, I, ch. (1275). compensation, Browning-Ferris, 297, 2932 part) cases), historically imposed.3 recognized notion oppressive," 888, (1909), "so severe disproportioned offense obviously unreasonable," Louis, (1919), offends retreat statements deny contrary, reaffirms precedents rebuffing attempt aberrations. thus company, 78 Solomonic fashion, rejects proffered approaches, instead selecting seemingly course. chooses all. erects single guidepost help area. 'mathematical unacceptable,' abandons pretense providing directly specifics 79 errs approach. inability discern formula liberate altogether unlike one, verdicts regular correspondingly obligation coherent can. adopt rigid verdicts. follow avoid offering clue own. 80 suggestion commend initial matter, 'should be, appear merely subje tive Justices.' Rummel Estelle, 445 263, 274, 1133, 1139, 382 (1980) Coker Georgia, 433 584, 592, 2861, 2866, 982 (1977) J.)). Without rely, almost personal preference. One another's moderation. element subjectivity, 'judgment[s] maximum extent.' 274-275, 1139-1140 same). out, directs various indicators, torts legislatively designated misconduct. exhaust inquiry, probative. turn. 81 engage searching discloses disproportions suggest context, "[o]ne use Stewart's classic obscenity—'I know it' —as ultimate judging" recognize dramatically irregular" nature probative force call explanation." Karcher Daggett, 462 725, 755, 2653, 2672, 133 (concurring (footnotes omitted). 82 irregular, shocking, measure. At raise suspicious eyebrow. Not represent 500 exceeds $9.98 million. "understandable damages," 22, 1045, $840,000 representing "close impropriety." quadruple line," absent convincing explanation, damages—surely cross 83 comparison confirms nature: 1a-3a (listing appeal Virginia). figure surprising issue. grave physical helpless callous malefactor. companies industry. accused slandering land—that impugning ownership—in concessions pre-existing contract. clearly wrongful, calculated, improper, retributive response. greatly caused, largest 5a-8a ap eal), offenses, 19, nn. 17-18, 9a-21a statutes). "objective criteria," severity offense" bears 1045. blush, "extreme resul[t] jar[s] 84 implicate concerns deny. refuses "enshrine 'test' awards." convenient establish multipart federalism "experiment methods" ferreting adjust methods time." 64, 1067 dissenting). reason wish disregard For example, retribution permissible awards, attributed goal; resists quantification. legislature like idea retribution. $5,000 seem proportioned blush; seen $50,000 85 approach, limits. alike, enlightening. recognizing compel discard entirely. gained blinding ourselves few guideposts painfully criteria. proposing precisely 301, 2934 part). comparisons. (comparing torts); International Great Northern Tex. 282, S.W. 517, 518 (1887) ratios). demonstrate suspected beginning. justified notably statute B 86 That, end inquiry. peculiar placed asserts exists explains, profit successful. 87 quarrel abstract, unrealized victim, gain. Linking substantially furthers State's weigh y interests traced Benson Frederick, Burr. 1846, 1130 (K.B.1766) (Wilmot, J.) (damages ordering flogged drummers though plaintiff's suffering, "it owing lenity [defendant] [plaintiff] "). theory, little happened 88 theory after-the-fact rationalization invented defend startling appeal. estimate proffer appears nowhere record. No lay witness testified figure. directed technical documents scattered rely. pull numbers together calculate never 89 estimate. Its applauds "thorough," profit. sole "millions misdeeds "other victims." 889 Virtually number Respondents' exclusively consumption. notes, figure, derived series extrapolations assumptions untested adversary presentation, unrealistic. Consequently, estimates. These estimates speculative, indicate yield, turns uncertain ambiguous either; extent anything all, exaggerated. 100, 103-104. 91 are, irrelevant. think harm. preference primarily local plaintiffs unsympathetic defendant, contends. After acceptable; reached considerations. precluded endorses. justify otherwise astonishing returned. 92 nstructed numerous setting 'the wrongdoing, inflicted, intent committing act, perpetrator, mitigating circumstances.' 34-35). Nowhere mention alternative measure 93 goal hypothesize sophisticated realize linked expected gain suppose daring enough measure, listed factors, speculation unmentioned mention—TXO's wealth: 'The object [punitive damages] deter others offenses future. Therefore recognizes 35) (emphases 95 juror felt measures proposes 96 excerpts arguments, Respondent Company's 'lot[s] money.' 748-749). remark Instead, addressing liability: him, obtain motive 746-749 (TXO slandered lower exact 100% lawsuit). discuss "His Honor you I've [are]. Now, just corporation. [T]he putting [expert resources] multi-million corporation—even billion assets. [Think range a] twelve dollars. talk corporation assets something dollars." 757-758 98 779-780; again quantify encourage base damages—TXO's "A company. Ha[s] earnings $225,000,000, average. Last $125,000,000.00 alone. year. what's that? hundred t ousand? million? You it's fair. ." 781. portion counsel's transition plea wealth. Immediately delivering reproduces—in 'fit' 'fit wealth,' ibid.—he asked rhetorically, "Now, wealth?" 780. detail, resources. point, profit?" question. thereon. cocounsel 781-782. 101 unpersuaded available instructions. relied. chose promote. C 102 permits affirmance. read seems unduly used here material specifically account. concedes calculus "increased is," non-resident." 34). latter instruction, legal meaning. (We "not 'additional compensation' Plaintiffs compensated injuries suffered; speak compensation" 104 juror, plaintiff; compensation," plaintiff. directing massive encouraged transfer impressive smaller sympathetic undifferentiated compensation"—for practically ensured occur. provided instructions). small sum rely; impressed deal. "enjoy[ing] windfall fortune de endant deep pocket." inviting redistribute solely position. 105 inclinations come surprise. corporations disfavor. Illinois Central Ill. 183, 188 (1869) generally railway which, individuals, extreme. lamentable popular powerful taint eyes fact"). Corporations abstractions such, unlikely sympathy. accumulation productive resources; naturally taking enormously pool privileged social ills distribution transferring "wealthy" comparatively needier plaintiffs. Brickman, Asbestos Crisis, Cardozo L.Rev. 1819, 1849, 128 (1992); Ellis, Fairness Efficiency Damages, Cal.L.Rev. 61-62 (1982); Owen, Problems Assessing Against Manufacturers Defective Products, U.Chi.L.Rev. 45-46 (1982) (jury forced measuring seven, eight nine figures); (jurors accountable judgments); cf. Covell, Cal.App.3d 947, 960, 161 Cal.Rptr. 377, 385 (juror 'didn't anymore' sure, unwise irrational, Abraham Jeffries, Rule Law: Role Defendant's Wealth, J.Legal Studies 415 (1989), corporation, 421-422; Zazu Designs L'Oreal, S.A., 979 F.2d 499, 508-509 (CA7 1992) (Easterbrook, J.). "[j]ust enact Herbert Spencer's Social Statics, York, 198 45, 75, 539, 546, 937 (1905) (Holmes, dissenting)," Economics school either. perpetrator relevant. 300, 2933 Magna Carta Blackstone's Commentaries). consideration, context review. danger create. today, Court, tribunals, commentators before. 1191 (1931) rich men fare juries, riches, fare. good; jurymen interested divesting vested attempting fix working admonitory function"); pra, 424; (bias railroads); McConnell Hampton, Johns. 234, 236 (N.Y.1815) (Thompson, C.J.) wealth); Newport Fact Concerts, 453 247, 270-271, 2748, 2761-2762, 616 (1981) ("[E]vidence [municipality's inasmuch unlimited taxing power], prejudicial impact effect encouraging sizable times, substantial"); 1056 (jurors, guided, "target unpopular wealth"). repeatedly extraordinary resources, estimated billion. worse, plaintiffs, Virginia. interloper, Texas. recognized, temptation in-state strong. 665, 897, 906 (1991) (Excess discretion "[i]nevitably leads increasing within"; pit "out-of-state (often faceless, publicly held) corporations"). speaks experience. Jarvis Woodmen America, 185 305, 406 736 Berry Nationwide Fire 181 168, 381 367 (1989). Counsels' near certainty. Repeatedly reminded State. "fair." opening rebuttal tone. "Ladies gentleman jury," began, greedy bunch doesn't case." 773. Playing images Texans overrich gamblers chance work, shortly thereafter "Texas high rollers, wildcatters." 777. drove home time, comparing out-of-town visitor put parking meter community service: 110 "Well, fair? someone town quarter meter, stays day, [in this] needs police fire department, [him] fine. day [he] dollar. person billfold maybe he's bucks there. want dollar, does, knows [he'll problems]. didn't everything individual, ruin [him], took cash. percent. want, want. fine, John Doe street, half dollars, over. w[ere] $225,000,000.00 [per year]. mean, yeah, cash flow. Their surplus. twenty-two poor guy cheat bit. Now money. hope, don't analyze fair." 781-782 Over discretion. Time away wanted, seemed 781 isn't really too small, big little. It's fair"); ibid. Have $225,000,000.00, thousand? ."). solid licensed afford appropriate, 112 Given absence monumentally likely, inescapable, acknowledges possibility, contends, press objections disagree. brief meet "Haslip [were] permissible." (W.Va.), 48; 44-46 insufficient interpreting challenge. 473-477, 886-890. to. "Once presented, claim; limited precise below." Yee Escondido, 503 1522, 1532, 118 153 (1992) 13). below excessive; partially responsible. fully presenting inconsistent reverse submitted 114 Confronted $19,000, Instead added insult injury, applying examination afforded conform remanded post-verdict Two Alabama's regime 19-20, 1044, reassured exacting levels. 'reasons interfering refusing grounds excessiveness.' 20, 1044 (quo ing Hammond Gadsden, 493 So.2d 1374, 1379 (1986)). "check" conducting standards—seven —thereby "ensur[ing] exceed accomplish society's deterrence." (internal quotation marks Specifically, examines: 116 "(a) occurred; duration awareness, concealment, frequency past conduct; (c) profitability desirability loss; (d) 'financial position' defendant; (e) costs litigation; (f) sanctions mitigation; (g) mitigation." 21-22, 117 "imposes sufficiently definite constraint" fact-finder effect," ibid., sparse admits, dissimilar post-trial "meaningful offered resemblance contrast findings. announce believed—or believed—that bore recognizable ruling bench, summarily elimination 119 better. outset, Proceeding stricken excessive, distinguished categories defendants: 474-476, 887-889. outer is" "five one." "even se unconstitutional." seems, stupid 120 Reference caricature observe conclude sky damages) limit. pa (so rich). "ensur[e] understandable to" Aside two-page dissertation difference mean," conclusory sentences paragraph bolster conclusion 889). colleagues affirming. Landfill implications Holding Virginia's previous suspect instruct 667-668, 908-909; mandated extensive 668-669, 909-910; 669, 910. 122 Unfortunately place. received benefit s' 's protections, remand "especially diligent" award; recite language governs declines believes consequence anyone alter changing 123 proceeding assumption, mistaken. interpret Constitution, grant cases. fulfill guarantors rule. faithful letter cognizant Unfortunately, forthcoming. inadequate altogether. Phillips Petroleum 20-27. warned: 124 "[W]e next perversely apply. [All judges] mouth ironic solemnity avoiding rules' logical consequences." Garnes, 666, 907. fear today's contemplated ill sory; will, necessity openly 126 years "rarely assessed" usually "small amount." S.Cal.L.Rev., 2. Recently, skyrocketing. "hardly month goes multimillion-dollar Wheeler, Proposal Further Development Use Product Liability Litigation, Ala.L.Rev. 919 upward trajectory continues unabated. Volz Fayz, Clause: Search Standards, Univ.Det.Mercy 459, matched corresponding expansion protections predictability. genuine reform, continue skeletal fairness—the —to bias. promised occasionally faithfully, results. fails promise. Hewlett Cruchley, Taunt. 696, 698 (C.P.1813) (Mansfield, ("[I]t acknowledged Westminsterhall [that] send Duberly Gunning, Durn. E. 651, 657 (K.B.1792) (Buller, ("New trials 1655" damages"); Chambers Caulfield, East. 244, 256, 1280, 1285 (K.B.1895) (Lord Ellenborough, ("[I]f Leith Pope, Bl.W. 1327, 1328, 777, 778 (K.B.1782) (award reversed flagrantly internal partiality Fabrigas Mostyn, 928, 549 (K.B.1774) ("Some [awards] passion Gilbert Burtenshaw, Cowp. 230, 231, 59, 1060 (Court "flagrantly outrageous extravagant" constitute "internal intemperance minds *909 (A "for weighed nice balance, blush outrageous, jury"). G. Field, 685-686 (1876) ("[W]hen unjust, aside"); 684 "where apparent, otherwise, corruption, mistake Sutherland, 810 (1882) indicate" perverted [the jury's] cool deliberation," "in discretion, interpose (Damages evince "intemperance, corruption"); Pleasants Heard, Ark. 403, (1855) (verdict "amount shocks sense justice"); Worster Proprietors Canal Bridge, Mass. 541, 547-548 (1835) "manifestly exorbitant"); (1870) familiar "jury trial"). 1055, extreme inflicted case"). ("[S]tate 'exemplary sustained,' Grant McDonogh, La.Ann. 447, 448 (1852), citing cases). McCarthy Niskern, Minn. 90, 91-92 (1875) (punitive "enormously justly regarded incurred injustice"); "when sustained" omitted)); Burkett Lanata, La. 337, 339 (1860) (Punitive "be commensurate Saunders Mullen, Iowa 728, 729, N.W. 529 ("When exemplary large"); received, "outrageously wrong defendant"); E., (The proved evidence"); Townsend Hughes, Mod. *150, *151, 994, 995 (C.P.1677) (Atkins, (court "consider [offense] proportion; hands verdict"). syllabus constitutes Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber 200 321, 287, 499. assignee leasehold George King Grover Goode, Georgia Fuels, Company. Fuels overriding provided, pertinent part: "Assignor [Alliance] hereby warrants event acreage, Assignee's examining determines Assignor reimburse Assignee lands failed." 463, 876, "unequivocally [found] unambiguous," 464, 877, stating "[a]lthough artful drafting, reserve Company." 463-464, 876-877 entire Appendix Court. 467-471, 890-894. Plaintiff's Exhibit 4., 1a. words Court: "In Corporation, USX, knowingly appellees purported title." memorandum, conferring O[il] G[as] estate opposed 78% net lease favor Fork's Inter-Office Memorandum (May 1985)). acquisition "an steal [Alliance's] land." 875, 877. further finds, acres quit Mining Corporation therefore, nullity." 18. disclose records discovery requests, analyzed parent, USX Corporation; division "$2.2 $2.5 billion." 890. objected affiliates, offer demonstrating wells. 98-99. executive confirmed intended, Tract, 673. dated showed benchmark located reserves 500,000 Mcf, prevailing market rate $3.00 Mcf. optimistic 672-673 (testimony prospect, "reasonably opportunity," deve lopment wells). Putting together, contend $1.5 developed 3. extrapolating, total income expect somewhere $22.5 (with wells) $37.5 wells)." 4. Pet. Cert. 64a. distinguish roughly comparable "egregious" interjected: "What vice president saying, testifying along belonged Fork?" 66a. 71a-72a. "Slander title," noted, "long action." 465, 878. elements tort: published derogatory done "malice," fees, 466-468, 879-881. examined issued reasonable. Generally, fall categories: defendants; mean deal minimal harm." 887-886. criticized categorization summarizing following syllabus: 'In malice, oppression, wanton, willful, reckless indifference obligations affecting appear, enactment authorizes, exemplary, punitive, vindictive .' 895. concluded: classification legitimate—but hold length within adjustment payment short act State." 78-79, 30. punished complete faith. noted: "There wrongdoing; departure prescribed action, Some regulation establishing mode inducing prompt monthly rentals necessary. chose. service neglected. protection paying patrons done. adopting impartially enforcing judicially testing regulation's acting seen, adjudications inflict aggregating $6,300 plainly 490-491, 888. 17-18. Holmes, Harlan, White, Day, (1905). 65, 547. solitary dissents. Ironically, Peckham, author Lochner. Airline 79, (1907); 52, 540. caveats. Harlan died 1911, participated Also, Day participate 13-14. oral track Powell's Oral Arg. 26. Applying "test," concludes (not surprisingly) jurisdictions allegedly circumstances, defended rationally related patently illegitimate redistributing policy SCALIA's notwithstanding, "reasonable." violation clause rights," SCALIA Rights enumeration (the Amendment) Post, (1852); Hunter Kansas City 213 Mo.App. 233, 245, 248 998, 1002 (1923); Mobile Montgomery Ashcraft, Ala. (1872); P.J. Willis Bro. McNeill, 480 (1882). 10, contends alleged wrongdoing country, worth, led 22-23. well-settled both. ("(b) defendant"). objected, follows: misconduct, example warning subjected. "If preponderance guilty wilful, others, surrounding occurrence, operate circumstances." 34-35. propose instruction. co urt, "[i]t standing hint Wagner McDaniels, St.3d 184, 186-187, 459 N.E.2d 561, 564 (1984); Gamble Stevenson, 305 S.C. 104, 354, Lunsford 746 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Tex.1988); Viking Jester, 310 317, 332, 836 371, 379 occurred, overturned aspect Wells, holding 667, 908. proposes, describes (a (1909)), applied. 24. two. describe difference, wonder — "grossly-excessive-that-means-something-even-worse-than-unreasonable" from.

Category: 7