Oral Argument Tomorrow in Case Challenging Mississippi's Non-economic Damages Caps
The oral argument in Sears v. Learmonth is scheduled for tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. in the en banc courtroom at the Mississippi Supreme Court. This is the case where the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals certified the issue of whether Mississippi's non-economic caps is constitutional.
Each side is allocated forty-five minutes to argue. Should be interesting.
In the last few weeks, I've talked to people who believe that the Court will uphold the caps and people who believe that the Court will strike the caps. Both can make logical arguments. Personally, I have no idea what the Court will do.
It's even conceivable that the case could settle before the Court issues an opinion. The verdict was for $2.2 million in non-economic damages. The parties could emerge from the oral argument and decide that there is a point between $1 million and $2.2 million where they can agree to settle.
I wonder what happens if the MSSC comes up with only a plurality op?
Hopefully the case will not settle and the Court can issue an opinion on this issue. I believe there is a division of authority amongst States about whether caps on non-economic damages in personal injury cases are constitutional. Didnt Georgia hold that the caps are unconstitutoinal? If there is a split in authority amongst the States, the USSC may grant cert. We'll see what happens.
Any state supreme court that ruled on the caps based on the FEDERAL constitution, not its own STATE constitution (of which it is the ultimate arbiter), needs its collective head examined.
I see Waller, Dickinson, Randolph, Carlson, and Lamar voting to uphold them, and Kitchens, King, and possibly Chandler voting to strike them down. Does anyone have know if the plaintiff's side has filed a motion to recuse Pierce? It's my understanding that when he was in the legislature he was on the committee that drafted the caps legislation.
I notice King has passed up a chance or two to vote w/ Kitchens & Chandler; I would expect him to align w/ them, but folks can change when they sit on the high bench.
Dickinson is a harder call to me; if he gets intellectually convinced the caps are some sort of technical violation, then he's not really going to care if the result is "pro-plaintiff."
And never forget that Waller is not any kind of "sure" defense vote.
Very good question on a Pierce recusal, but I don't see any such on the docket. He could always recuse sua sponte.
the court has made a big deal out of the legislature violating separation of powers. long ago with rules of civil procedure and rules of evidence. more recently with court funding and other issues.
this could be viewed as a separation of powers issue. but there is a lot more political focus on this issue than court funding.