A community-based foundation...

---

SPECIAL REMINDER

Oral arguments before the Supreme Court are scheduled for February 27, 2008. We will be posting news and information as it breaks. Get up-to-the-minute news from Google News RSS Feed

---

From Table of Contents of Exxon's Petition:

I. The Court Should Grant Certiorari to Resolve the Conflict in the Circuits on Whether Maritime Law Permits Vicarious Punitive Damages&.page 11

II. The Court Should Grant Certiorari to Resolve the Conflict in the Circuits on Whether Maritime Law Permits Judge-Made Remedies When Congress Has Not Authorized Them in Applicable Statutes&.page 15

III. The Court Should Grant Certiorari to Remedy Confusion in the Lower Courts and Make Clear the Permissible Size of Punitive Damage Awards under Maritime Law and under the Due Process Clause&.page 21
A. Maritime Law&page 21

B. Due Process&.page 27 (petition not granted for part B)

EXXON's Appeal to the Supreme Court

http://www.adn.com/static/includes/news/exxonpetition.pdf

The Court will hear Exxon's petition as to the following issues:

1. Whether Exxon can be liable for its drunk captain absent a showing that Exxon "directed, countenanced or participated in the conduct...."

2. Is Exxon's punitive liability limited to the penalties contained in the Clean Water Act ? (This is Exxon's argument that $ 25,000,000 is right and $ 40,000,000 is too much):

3. Is $ 2.5Billion within the limits allowed by federal maritime law?

The Court elected not to hear any arguments about whether, even if maritime law allowed the penalty, it is permitted under Constitutional due process.



Submitted for publication on this website by ORA Board member Chuck McCallum

---

Thank You to the communities and organizations who contributed to the success of the reopener claim. Both the State and U.S. Attorneys General have requested further investigation and reparation from Exxon.

On December 22, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its decision on Exxon's most recent appeal. District Court Judge H. Russel Holland had concluded that a punitive damages award of $4.5 billion was consistent with the due process clause of the United States Constitution. But the Ninth Circuit reduced that award to $2.5 billion, saying that number was the outer limit of what the Constitution allowed. The circuit's opinion was authored by Fairbanks, Alaska Judge Andrew Kleinfeld and the Circuit's Chief Judge, Mary Schroeder, of Phoenix. There was a dissenting opinion from Judge James Browning, of San Francisco, who concluded that the Constitution would allow the jury's original $5 billion award.

Exxon has now asked a larger group of Ninth Circuit judges to hear the case, a process called asking for "en banc" consideration. The panel solicited plaintiffs' response to Exxon's request, which was filed on March 2. We expect to hear from the circuit this spring as to whether en banc consideration will be granted. Plaintiffs' lawyers do not yet know whether the court will do so. Assuming the Ninth Circuit decides not to hear the case further, Exxon will have 90 days from the date the court says it is not going to hear an en banc petition to ask the United States Supreme Court to hear the case, a process called filing a "petition for certiorari." Plaintiffs will have 30 days to respond to any such petition.

With interest the $2.5 billion judgment, if it stands, is currently close to $4.5 billion. It is expected that over $3 billion will be available for distribution to claimants covered by the plan of allocation, after reductions for fees, after reductions for the "Seattle Seven" settlement, and after distributions for certain plaintiffs who receive a distribution outside the plan of allocation.

---

The Oiled Regions of Alaska Foundation was formed to help southcentral Alaska towns and villages. We receive and distribute donated funds for charitable purposes that benefit communities and regions that were directly impacted by the Exxon Valdez oil spill of March 1989.