There have been subsequent developments in several cases about which we have posted in recent months.
On April 27, 2016, the California Supreme Court denied review in Casey v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., a case in which the Court of Appeal made some questionable rulings in upholding a substantial punitive verdict. Our post about the Court of Appeal decision is here.
In Crowley v. Watson—the retaliatory-discharge case against Chicago State University and others discussed in this post—the Illinois Supreme Court denied the defendants’ petition for leave to appeal on May 25, 2016.
And on June 9, 2016, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Insurance Co., holding that so-called Brandt fees should be treated as compensatory damages when calculating the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages. We wrote this post about our amicus brief in that case. A post analyzing the California Supreme Court’s decision is forthcoming.
But the news isn’t all bad. On May 27, 2016, the Tenth Circuit denied rehearing en banc in the case in which a divided panel had vacated a punitive award against one defendant entirely and reduced the punitive award against another defendant to bear a 1:1 ratio to the compensatory damages. Not a single member of the court (including the judge who dissented from the panel decision) dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc. Our post about that case is here.