Lawyers USA Your Business Partner

WASHINGTON – Last week the U.S. Supreme Court wrapped up a term filled with landmark decisions in several areas, including federal preemption, criminal law and procedure and employment law.

Here is a look at the Court’s decisions from the 2008-2009 term – and one non-decision – that will have the biggest impact on trial attorneys:

1. Wyeth v. Levine

In what was surely the most anticipated case of the term, the Supreme Court held in March that federal law does not automatically preempt state law tort claims over drugs.
The ruling upheld a $6 million verdict in favor of a musician who lost her arm after being administered an anti-nausea drug via the “IV-push” method. She sued, claiming that the drug maker failed to warn of the risks of administering the drug in that way.

In rejecting the company’s claim that such suits were impliedly preempted by federal law, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the 6-3 majority: “State tort suits uncover unknown drug hazards and provide incentives for drug manufacturers to disclose safety risks promptly. They also serve a distinct compensatory function that may motivate injured persons to come forward with information.”

The ruling allowed a number of similar drug suits to move forward, striking down a common defense asserted by drug companies defending the claims. More on the Levine ruling here .

2. Altria Group v. Good

In another preemption decision that al lowed claims by smokers seeking billions of dollars in damages from tobacco companies to proceed, the Court ruled in December that state law claims that tobacco companies deceptively market “light” or “low tar” cigarettes are not preempted by federal law.

The 5-4 ruling allowed dozens of already-filed complaints by consumers alleging the deceptive use of the labels “light” and “low tar” to go forward in more than 20 states.

Combined, the claims seek billions of dollars from cigarette manufacturers, with the plaintiffs claiming that the companies knew cigarettes labeled as “light” and “low tar” cause smokers to inhale just as much nicotine and tar as regular cigarettes. More on the Good ruling here and here .

3. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts

In 5-4 ruling that affects how criminal trials involving drug and other offenses are prosecuted across the nation, the Court held in June that the Confrontation Clause requires analysts who prepare crime law reports submitted as evidence to be made available to testify at trial.

The ruling was hailed by defense attorneys who say it will help protect against wrongful convictions based on incorrect or shoddy criminal lab analyses.

But prosecutors claim that the rule will tax their already strapped resources, and ultimately lead to more cases against alleged drug offenders being dropped altogether. More on the Melendez-Diaz decision can be found here .

4. Gross v. FBL Financial Services

Many Court watchers were stunned by this ruling, which went beyond the question presented in the case to eliminate “mixed-motive” claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

The parties had expected the Court to decide whether such claims required the plaintiff to put forth direct, as opposed to circumstantial, evidence. But instead, in another 5-4 decision, the Court said that the ADEA didn’t allow mixed-motive claims at all.

The ruling shocked some employment attorneys.

“Now the most minimum documentation is all an employer will need” to defeat an age discrimination claim, said Simon Lazarus, public policy counsel for the National Senior Citizens Law Center.

“The employee will have to prove that age discrimination – rather than cost savings, or efficiency or something [else] – was not only a cause, not only the significant cause, not only the motivating cause, but the exclusive cause of an adverse employment action,” Lazarus said. More on the Gross case can be found here .

5. Ricci v. DeStefano

Employment lawyers say the Court’s June decision holding that throwing out employment test results based on racial considerations violated Title VII – even when the decision was meant to promote a more diverse workforce – puts employers in a tough place.

If the tests employers use to hire or promote employees has the effect of excluding minorities, companies can’t discard the results, nor can they avoid disparate impact litigation based on the results. More on that ruling here .

6. Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co

The June decision requiring judges to recuse themselves from cases involving big donors is likely to have wide ranging effects in the 28 states that hold contested elections for judges.

The holding could result in more attorneys filing recusal motions, a push for changes in campaign finance rules and an increased number of judges stepping away from cases involving donors for fear that their rulings could face constitutional scrutiny. More coverage of Caperton can be found here .

7. Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that the strip search of a 13-year-old student suspected of having prescription drugs was unconstitutional was cheered by civil liberties advocates.

But school officials say it gives little guidance on how they can balance the interests of protecting students’ privacy and keeping dangerous drugs out of the classroom. More on the decision here .

8. D.A.’s Office for Third Judicial District v. Osborne

In yet another 5-4 decision, the justices held that a criminal defendant does not have a constitutional right to DNA testing after conviction. More on Osborne here .

9. Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County

In another employment law ruling, the Court held in January that a worker who was fired after answering questions during an internal sex harassment inquiry can pursue a Title VII retaliation claim. More on the impact of Crawford here .

10. Philip Morris USA v. Williams

In an odd ‘no-decision,’ the Supreme Court decided not to force a state court to throw out a punitive damages award against a tobacco company.

This move signaled that the Court is unwilling to interfere with state courts’ judgment in such matters. More on Williams here .

Questions or comments can be directed to the writer at: kimberly.atkins@lawyersusaonline.com

Close this Window Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks

Print RSS Feed Ask backflip blinklist BlogBookmark Bloglines BlogMarks Blogsvine BuddyMarks BUMPzee! CiteULike co.mments

Connotea del.icio.us Digg diigo DotNetKicks DropJack dzone Facebook Fark Faves Feed Me Links Friendsite folkd.com

Furl Google Hugg Jeqq Kaboodle kirtsy linkaGoGo linkedin LinksMarker Ma.gnolia Mister Wong Mixx MySpace

MyWeb Netvouz Newsvine oneview OnlyWire PlugIM Propeller Reddit Rojo Segnalo Shoutwire Simpy Slashdot

Sphere Sphinn Spurl Squidoo StumbleUpon Technorati ThisNext Tumblr Twitter Webride Windows Live Yahoo!

Email This to a Friend

Copy HTML: 

 If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

More »