U.S. Supreme Court Tort Reform: Limiting State Power to Articulate and Develop Its Own Tort Law–Defamation, Preemption, and Punitive Damages

摘要

U.S. Supreme Court Tort Reform: Limiting State Power to Articulate and Develop Its Own Tort Law–Defamation, Preemption, and Punitive Damages analyzes and critiques the three primary areas in which the U.S. Supreme Court has found federal constitutional limits on a state’s power to articulate, develop, and apply its common law of torts. It is the first piece to consider all three areas together as an emerging body of jurisprudence which Professor Galligan calls U.S. Supreme Court tort reform. After setting forth a modest model of adjudication, the article applies that model to each of the three areas: defamation and related torts, preemption, and punitive damages. While each discrete body of law manifests consistencies and inconsistencies with the model of adjudication, Professor Galligan concludes that the punitive damages cases are the most troublesome of the three because those decisions are the most intrusive on state power, the most thinly reasoned, and the least respectful of the jury’s role in tort cases. Professor Galligan concludes with proposals for punitive damages cases, such as a constitutional recovery threshold and a heightened burden of proof that would bring the punitive damages cases more in line with the other U.S. Supreme Court tort reform jurisprudence.