I missed it. The Supreme Court issued an Order last week in the Sears v. Learmonth case where the Court is to decide whether Mississippi’s cap on non-economic damages is constitutional. Here is the Court’s September 15, 2011 Order.

The Order states that the Court is hung up on the fact that the verdict form did not separate economic and non-economic damages. The parties stipulated that the amount of non-economic damages was $2,218,905. The Order asks the parties to address:

“what fact(s) and/or legal authority exist for this Court to accept a stipulation regarding the amount of noneconomic damages found by the jury?”

Here is the final judgement in the District Court. It does not separate the damages.

This case came to the Court via certification on the caps issue from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Justice Michael Randolph issued the Court’s Order.

My Take:

Sears’ reply brief is due November 28, 2011; several weeks after the November elections. Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not.

But cynics should keep in mind that this is not the first time that the Court has focused on this specific issue. The Court mentioned that economic and non-economic damages should be separated on the verdict form in the InTown Suites decision that I wrote about in June here. In that case, the Court ruled that the defendant could not challenge the amount of non-economic damages on appeal because the verdict form did not separate economic and non-economic damages.

In this case, the record does not contain a verdict form that separates economic and non-economic damages. Under the InTown Suites case, the verdict should be affirmed without reaching the caps question. Except the parties stipulated the amount of damages that were economic and non-economic. That was a bad stipulation for somebody. I can’t decide who.

The Court’s request for more briefing on the stipulation makes sense based on the InTown Suites decision. This is all very interesting.

It would be funny if the Court answers the 5th Circuit’s certification question by stating that the Court finds that under Mississippi law, the amount of non-economic damages can’t be challenged when the verdict form does not separate economic and non-economic damages. Instead of answering the 5th Circuits question, the Court would answer its own question. Possible? Maybe.