October Term 2006 · Docket 05-1256
Can a jury award damages for harm to nonparties?
Philip Morris seeks to remove a jury award for harm to nonparties. Williams defends the award as proper.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Andrew Frey argued the Oregon courts failed to apply State Farm.
Mr. Peck argued the Oregon courts properly treated the instruction as an enigma.
questions_in_argument
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 9-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-1 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-39 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 39-41
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Philip Morris USA v. Williams
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-7
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 31, 2006.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
What each side wants
Philip Morris wants the Court to remove the award for nonparty harm.
Williams wants the Court to keep the award for nonparty harm.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-7
What each side says
Philip Morris argues the Oregon courts failed to apply State Farm correctly.
Williams argues the Oregon courts properly treated the proposed instruction as an enigma.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-7
What the justices asked
Justice Souter asked how to handle a wrong legal view focused by a denied instruction.
Justice Scalia asked if the Court could remand for official error.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 9-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-1 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-39 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 39-41
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of punitive damages. It determines whether juries can punish for harm to nonparties. It shapes future tort litigation outcomes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-7
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 9-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-37 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-1 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-39 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 39-41
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-7
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.