Opinion
No. 320 WAL 2021 No. 321 WAL 2021
03-29-2022
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 29th day of March, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, limited to the following issues, as phrased by Petitioners:
a. Whether, in cases where the compensatory damages award is substantial, a punitive-to-compensatory damages ratio exceeding 9:1 is presumptively unconstitutional under U.S. Supreme Court precedent?
b. Whether in cases involving joint and several liability—where compensatory damages are awarded, cumulatively, against all defendants and not on an individualized basis—the constitutionally permissible ratio of punitive-to-compensatory damages is calculated on a per-judgment basis and not a per-defendant basis?
c. Whether, in reviewing the constitutionality of a punitive damages award, a court cannot consider the speculative potential harm that the plaintiff could have suffered and introduce it as a post hoc justification for the award, especially when the plaintiff did not present evidence of potential harm to the jury?
In all other respects, the petition is DENIED. Additionally, the PCCJR's application to file an amicus brief in support of granting allowance of appeal is dismissed as moot.