| Why am I not surprised that the Alabama Supreme Court voted 8 to1 in favor of Exxon to overturn almost all of the $3.6 billion damages the oil giant had been ordered to pay the state of Alabama? After all, there are 8 Republicans and 1 Democrat on the state Supreme Court. Could it be that this was a party line vote? Yes, it could be and it was, with Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb (D) the only dissenting voice in the decision. Jere Beasley, one of the attorney's representing the state of Alabama, said: "When a powerful and politically influential corporate giant can get away with what Exxon did to the citizens of our state, it's truly a sad day for Alabama."
This is from the Chief Justice Cobb's dissenting opinion: "Not only does the majority opinion approve of the appropriation of this State's resources by deceit, it undermines any individual or institution that would pursue honest business practices. This is neither legal nor just."
This is not the first time the Alabama Supreme Court has ruled in favor of oil companies, either: The decision was the second time the Alabama Supreme Court had ruled in Exxon Mobil's favor. The first time the case went to trial, a jury awarded $3.5 billion, but the Supreme Court threw out the verdict, ruling that the an internal Exxon Mobil memo should not have been admitted as evidence. The court ordered the new trial that occurred in 2003. Thursday's decision was similar to one the Alabama Supreme Court issued in 2004, when it threw out a $24.6 million punitive damage verdict the state won in a similar — but much smaller — royalties dispute with Hunt Petroleum over natural gas wells along the coast.
It may not be clear from the quote above, but Exxon was convicted by not one, but two Alabama juries. The Supreme Court completely overturned the first conviction, forcing a new trial. The second jury awarded even larger damages. Apparently giving up on finding a jury to look favorably on Exxon's behavior, the Alabama Supremes have decided to let the verdict stand, but throw out the punitive damages against Exxon. To put the $3.6 billion dollar damage award in perspective, the Reuters story quotes Charles Cooper, another attorney for the state of Alabama:
Cooper said Exxon makes revenue equal to the $3.6 billion judgment in 3.5 days and said it would be equivalent to a $370 fine for the average Alabamian.
Looks like the oil companies are living right, according to the 8 Republican Justices on the Alabama Supreme Court. There they are, below. Harold See will be retiring next year, so we'll have a chance to elect someone more right-thinking in his place about a year from now.
| |
|  | Harold Frend See, Jr., Associate Justice |
|  | Champ Lyons, Jr., Associate Justice |
|  | Thomas A. Woodall, Associate Justice |
|  | Lyn Stuart, Associate Justice |
|  | Patricia M. Smith, Associate Justice |
|  | Michael F. Bolin, Associate Justice |
|  | Tom Parker, Associate Justice |
|  | Glenn Murdock, Associate Justice |
|
