State Court Docket Watch
-
Citing Rule Against “Log Rolling,” Oklahoma Supreme Court Overturns Comprehensive State Tort Reform
Summer 2013
The practice of tucking tax breaks or other legislative favors for special interests into “must pass” federal legislation has become commonplace in the U.S. Congress, as nothing in the U.S. Constitution limits or forbids this tactic. However in the vast majority of states, such “log rolling” is prohibited by constitutional provisions limiting legislation to a “single subject.” On June 4, the Oklahoma Supreme Court invoked that state constitution’s version of this rule and invalidated the Comprehensive Lawsuit Reform Act of 2009. This article will briefly explain state rules against log rolling, discuss how the Oklahoma Court applied its rule in Douglas v. Cox Retirement Properties,1 and note the decision’s impact in Oklahoma and nationally.
-
Oklahoma Supreme Court Strikes Down Informed Consent Law
Spring 2013
On December 4, 2012, in Nova Health Systems v. Pruitt, 2012 OK 103 (Okla. 2012), the Oklahoma Supreme Court summarily struck down—on federal constitutional grounds—an Oklahoma informed consent law that required abortion doctors to perform an ultrasound and make certain disclosures regarding fetal development before proceeding with an abortion.
-
Virginia Supreme Court Expands Wrongful Discharge Cause of Action
Spring 2013
In Van Buren v. Grubb, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled for the first time that a non-employer may be sued for wrongful discharge if he violated Virginia public policy.
-
Oregon Supreme Court Shifts Burden of Proof for Eyewitness Testimony
Spring 2013
By Daniel C. Re
On November 29, 2012, the Oregon Supreme Court filed its unanimous decision in the consolidated cases of State v. Lawson and State v. James. The landmark ruling fundamentally altered the standard for eyewitness testimony at trial, and garnered national media attention.
-
Florida Supreme Court Upholds Legislature’s Changes to State Pension System
Spring 2013
On January 17, 2013, in Scott v. Williams, 2013 FL 520 (Fla. 2013), the Florida Supreme Court upheld the Florida Legislature’s amendments to the Florida Retirement System (“FRS”) in a four-to-three decision.1 Governor Rick Scott regarded the decision as a “victory for taxpayers,” while union leaders complain that the governor is balancing the budget on the backs of state workers.2
-
Alabama Supreme Court Adopts “Innovator Liability”
Spring 2013
By Jack Park
In Wyeth, Inc. v. Weeks, the Supreme Court of Alabama, by an 8-1 margin, adopted the so-called “innovator liability” theory, holding brand-name drug manufacturer Wyeth liable for personal injuries suffered by an individual who bought and used only a generic drug product manufactured and sold by one of Wyeth’s competitors. Unless reversed on rehearing, this ruling—the first by a state’s highest court—stands in contrast with the vast majority of decisions that have rejected the theory. Only a California court of appeals and a U.S. district court in Vermont have previously embraced the innovator liability theory. Rulings from four federal courts of appeal and from Alabama’s neighboring southeastern states are among those decisions to the contrary.
-
Pennsylvania High Court Hears Challenge to Voter ID Law
Winter 2012-2013
Voter ID laws, defined as laws requiring photo evidence of identification at the polls, are a growing trend across the country. The first states to adopt such laws were Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, and Tennessee. Proponents claim that the impetus behind these laws is to minimize voter fraud by ensuring that those voting are, in fact, the person they claim to be. Opponents view them as an effort to disenfranchise the poor, the infirmed, and the elderly, analogizing the law to the unconstitutional poll taxes historically used to prevent black Americans from voting.
-
Virginia Supreme Court Limits Insurer’s Duty to Defend in Climate Change Lawsuits
Winter 2012-2013
AES Corp. v. Steadfast Insurance Co.,1 was a closely watched Virginia Supreme Court case that, as the New York Times put it, basically asked whether an insurance company has to “foot the bill for a company facing damages over climate change.”2 The case was significant for the insurance industry and others interested in climate change litigation, because it was the first of its kind to reach an appellate court. The court ultimately held that an insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify against climate change-related injuries under the terms of its general commercial liability (GCL) insurance policy.
-
Declining to Follow Its Neighbor Missouri, the Kansas Supreme Court Holds Noneconomic Damages Cap in Medical Malpractice Cases Constitutional
Winter 2012-2013
By Stephen Clark, Kristin Weinberg
The Kansas Supreme Court, in Miller v. Johnson,1 recently upheld Kansas’ statutory cap on non-economic damages in personal injury cases, including medical malpractice cases, as constitutional. Specifically, the Kansas Supreme Court held the cap, set forth in K.S.A. 60-19a02, does not violate Sections 5 and 18 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights providing a right to a jury trial and a right to damages, respectively. This decision is in contrast to its neighboring state’s supreme court, which recently declared a statutory cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases unconstitutional for violation of the right to a jury trial.2
-
Tenth Circuit Rejects Challenge to the Judicial Merit Selection Process in Kansas
Winter 2012-2013
By Clayton Callen, Justin Whitworth
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has become the latest federal appellate court to weigh in on the constitutionality of the so-called “merit selection” method for selecting state court judges.1 Like the Eighth Circuit and Ninth Circuit courts before it, the Tenth Circuit upheld the key provision of the “merit selection” process against an Equal Protection Clause challenge.2 The Tenth Circuit’s decision was not unanimous, however. Further, the two judges in the majority disagreed on the appropriate analysis and application of relevant Supreme Court precedent. The divergent reasoning applied by the Tenth Circuit demonstrates the need for clarity from the Supreme Court. Only time will tell if such clarity will be provided.