State Court Docket Watch
-
New Jersey Voters Overwhelmingly Approve Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Judicial Pensions Case
Winter 2012-2013
This article provides a brief history of the Pension and Health Care Benefits Act and the DePascale litigation challenging it. It also discusses ways in which this decision is likely to have continuing significance in the debate in New Jersey about the proper role of the judiciary and the composition of the current Supreme Court, which is likely to change in the coming year.
-
Missouri Supreme Court Overrules 20 Years of Precedent in Holding Noneconomic Damages Cap Unconstitutional
Winter 2012-2013
By Stephen Clark, Kristin Weinberg
Overruling its own twenty-year precedent in Adams By and Through Adams v. Children’s Mercy Hospital1 (Adams), the Missouri Supreme Court, in a four-to-three decision, held in Watts v. Lester E. Cox Medical Centers (Watts) that the cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases in Mo. Rev. Stat. § 538.210, passed as part of the comprehensive tort reform passed by the Missouri Legislature in 2005, violates article I, section 22(a) of the Missouri Constitution’s right to trial by jury.2 The Missouri Supreme Court also held that Mo. Rev. Stat. § 538.220 grants a trial judge authority to determine the manner by which future damages shall be paid, including what amount shall be paid in future installments.3
-
Supreme Court Reaffirms Its Holding from Citizens United
Summer 2012
By Edward Greim, Justin Whitworth
In denying a recent petition for certiorari and summarily reversing a decision of the Montana Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court adhered to principles of stare decisis and reaffirmed its 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (“Citizens United”), which held that corporations and labor unions’ independent spending for political campaigns enjoys First Amendment free-speech protection.1 The Montana Supreme Court had upheld a state law that prohibited corporate political expenditures, reasoning that Citizens United did not apply in Montana because of the state’s purportedly distinctive history of its “political system being corrupted by corporate interests.”2 The United States Supreme Court disagreed, summarily reversing without granting certiorari.3
-
Texas Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Private-Property Owners in Case on Public Access to Beaches
Summer 2012
By Brittany La Couture, Timothy Sandefur
In a case of first impression, the Texas Supreme Court recently ruled in Severance v. Paterson1 that the rights of private-property owners trump the public’s right to access beaches on private property. The court held 5-3 that when an act of nature “suddenly and dramatically” pushes back the vegetation line on a beach, the public easement that state law creates on beaches does not move along with it.2 In other words, while easements may change gradually, an avulsion3 does not entitle the state to a drastic expansion of its claim over existing private property.4 This article will describe the background and decision in Severance and examine how this case fits in with coastal-property jurisprudence.
-
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Excludes Any Exposure Theory in Asbestos and Toxic-Tort Litigation
Summer 2012
By William L. Anderson, Kieran Tuckley
On May 23, 2012, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that the trial court had properly excluded the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses from espousing the opinion that every occupational exposure to asbestos contributes substantially to mesothelioma.1 This is the any exposure theory that has served as the foundation for a significant expansion of asbestos litigation in recent years by incorporating even the smallest amount of occupational exposure as a “substantial factor” in causing disease. This article provides background information on the any exposure theory and explains the significance of this ruling and why this and other courts are regularly rejecting it. The Pennsylvania opinion is only the latest in a series of similar opinions excluding the any exposure theory as unscientific and unsuitable to support causation in toxic tort litigation.
-
New Jersey Supreme Court Rules Homeowners’ Association’s Sign Restriction on the Interior of a Unit Is Unconstitutional
Summer 2012
On June 13, 2012, the Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the appellate division’s ruling and found that the sign restrictions adopted by Mazdabrook Commons Homeowners’ Association (“Association”) violate the free speech clause of the state constitution.1 In Mazdabrook Commons Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Khan2 (“Mazdabrook”), the court held that a homeowner’s free-speech right to post political signs in his home outweighed the private property interest of a homeowners’ association. The court found the restriction at issue—which had amounted to a near-complete ban on all residential signs—to be unreasonable and unconstitutional. However, the homeowners’ associations can still adopt reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, providing adequate alternative means of communication.3
-
Iowa Supreme Court Deeply Divided on Whether the Iowa Constitution Contains a Right to Education
Summer 2012
In April, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected a plea to read a right to a “minimally sufficient” education into Iowa’s Constitution. The case, King v. State,1 is noteworthy for that ruling alone—especially because education reform was at the top of the legislative agenda in Iowa this year. But the five separate opinions—totaling 163 pages—are about much more than education. Several issues surfaced in this case, chief among them constitutional interpretation and the role of the judiciary. The justices also wrangled over how to apply the rational-basis test, issue preservation, and the pleading requirements applicable to a motion to dismiss. The case also highlights the split among the justices that formed when Justices Waterman, Mansfield, and Zager joined the court after the 2010 retention election.
-
Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules Plaintiffs Entitled to Receive “Phantom Damages”
Spring 2012
In a recent decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has added to the growing list of cases that allow plaintiffs to recover “phantom damages” in personal injury actions for past medical expenses that were written off by the medical provider and never paid by the plaintiff or his or her insurer.
-
Arkansas Supreme Court Clarifies Standard for Awarding Punitive Damages
Spring 2012
On December 8, 2011, the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed a jury’s award of approximately $5.98 million in compensatory damages and $42 million in punitive damages against a developer of genetically modified rice found to have negligently allowed the rice to contaminate the national rice supply.1 Specifically, the court held that (1) the statutory cap on punitive damages was unconstitutional under the state constitution, (2) the economic-loss doctrine did not bar the claims, (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting expert testimony on future damages, and (4) the developer failed to preserve its argument that the punitive damages were grossly excessive.
-
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Vacates Trial Court’s Denial of a Minor’s Application to Obtain an Abortion
Spring 2012
By Steven J. Willis, Jordan E. Pratt
On December 22, 2011, in a case of first impression, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated a trial court’s denial of a minor’s judicial bypass application—an application to obtain an abortion without parental consent. In so doing, the court decided two issues of significance to both sides of the abortion debate: the standard of review on appeal and the relevance of a minor’s failure to seek parental consent in determining whether to grant a judicial bypass. First, the court held that appellate courts must deferentially review—under an abuse of discretion standard—a trial court’s denial of a minor’s petition for judicial bypass. Second, the court held that a trial court may not rely on a minor’s failure to seek her parents’ consent when determining whether she has the requisite maturity and capacity to consent to an abortion.