Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, March 4, 1991 TAG: 9103040265
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A/1 EDITION: EVENING
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
By a 7-1 vote, the justices said the award is not so disproportionate to the damages suffered by the woman that it violates constitutional guarantees of fundamental fairness.
Justice Harry Blackmun, writing for the court, said the difference between the actual damages in the case and the punitive award is wide "and indeed may be close to the line" of being unconstitutional.
But, he said, "The award here did not lack objective criteria . . . It does not cross the line into the area of constitutional impropriety."
In other action, the court:
Rejected Nevada's challenge to the federal government's efforts to put a high-level nuclear waste dump about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
The justices, without comment, let stand a federal appeals court ruling that Nevada is pre-empted from blocking pursuit of the project at Yucca Mountain. The proposed dump is now the only such project being studied by Energy Secretary James Watkins.
Agreed to decide whether federal regulators may force bank holding companies to pump money into ailing banks they own.
The court said it will review a ruling that gutted the Federal Reserve Board's "source of strength" policy, which had required bank holding companies to maintain adequate capital for subsidiary banks.
Refused to ban state "lemon laws" that give buyers of chronically defective automobiles more legal protection than they receive under federal law.
The court, over two dissenting votes, rejected arguments by domestic and foreign car makers that such state laws impermissibly conflict with federal law.
Refused to let a New York City church tear down its community house and build a commercial skyscraper in its place.
The court, without comment, rejected arguments that city landmark officials violated the rights of St. Bartholomew's Church by insisting the community building be preserved.
The punitive damages case was among the most closely watched of the court's current term because of its potential for altering the legal landscape in America.
But by refusing to place limits on punitive damage judgments, today's decision leaves matters where they have been - in the hands of state legislators, judges and juries.
Blackmun said, "Unlimited jury discretion - or unlimited judicial discretion for that matter - in the fixing of punitive damages may invite extreme results that jar one's constitutional sensibilities."
But, he continued, "We need not, and indeed we cannot, draw a mathematical bright line between the constitutionally acceptable and the constitutionally unacceptable that would fit every case."
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in a dissenting opinion, said the ruling will "substantially impede punitive damages reforms."
The current system, she said, invites juries "to target unpopular defendants, penalize unorthodox or controversial views and redistribute wealth. Multi-million dollar losses are inflicted on a whim . . . I see a strong need to provide juries with standards to constrain their discretion."
Blackmun's opinion was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Byron White, Thurgood Marshall and John Paul Stevens. Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy voted with them to uphold the award in the Alabama case but wrote separate concurring opinions.
Scalia said the court should rule more broadly that punitive damage awards do not violate the Constitution "since jury-assesed punitive damages are a part of our living tradition that dates back prior to 1868."
Kennedy said the high court is powerless to alter the system dramatically and said that job must be left to the states.
Justice David Souter joined the court after the case was argued and did not take part in the decision.
by CNB