13 - RUSTAD.DOC 2/28/2008 1:35:59 PM 459 THE UNCERT-WORTHINESS OF THE COURT’S UNMAKING OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES Michael L. Rustad I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................... 460 II. THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES BUSINESS OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ............................................................ 468 A. The Court’s Shrunken Docket ....................................... 468 B. Punitive Damages’ Commanding Role on the Docket ..473 1. The Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause ...................................................................... 477 2. Due Process Constrains Jury Discretion ................ 479 3. Compulsory Post-Verdict Reviews for Excessiveness .......................................................... 484 4. Appellate Courts Must Apply De Novo Review to Punitive Damages ................................................... 485 5. State Farm’s Further Rules on Ratios & Extraterritoriality ................................................... 486 a. Guidepost #1: Reprehensibility .......................... 488 i. Physical vs. Economic Harm ......................... 488 ii. Financial Vulnerability of Plaintiff.............. 489 iii. Recidivism vs. Isolated Incident ................. 490 iv. Intentional Malice, Trickery, or Deceit vs. Thomas F. Lambert Jr. Professor of Law & Co-Director of Intellectual Property Law Program, Suffolk University Law School. I appreciate the skilled research assistance of Suffolk University Law students Nicole Chiesa, Michelle Dhanda, John Martin, Stefanie Niedzwiecki, Tom Ryan, Stephanie S. McGraw, and Jo-Na Williams. I would also like to thank my wife, Chryss J. Knowles, for her superb editorial assistance on this manuscript. Finally, I would like to thank the staff of the Charleston Law Review for their outstanding editorial work. Professor Rustad authored the amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiff in TXO Prod. Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., 509 U.S. 443 (2003), for University Scholars and Law Professors in Support of the Respondent. He has been a co- author or signatory on amici briefs filed in five of the eight punitive damages cases decided by the Court. In Philip Morris v. Williams, he was most recently a signatory in the Amici Brief of Professors and Scholars, which relied extensively on his empirical research on punitive damages.