Photo of Rory K. Schneider

Rory Schneider is a Supreme Court & Appellate associate in Mayer Brown's New York office. Prior to joining Mayer Brown in 2014, Rory worked as a law clerk to Judge Marjorie O. Rendell of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. He also spent a year as a litigation associate at another prominent international law firm based in New York. Rory received his JD, summa cum laude, from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where he was a comments editor on the Law Review. He received his undergraduate degree from the George Washington University.

Read Rory's full bio.

Do Not Duplicate StampIn prior posts, we have occasionally adverted to the issue of multiple punishments in the constitutional context.  Just before the new year, a California appellate court issued an unpublished decision in Paletz v. Adaya bearing on a different aspect of the multiple punishment problem.  In Paletz, the Court of Appeal reversed an award of punitive damages as duplicative of an award of statutory penalties, concluding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to collect both forms of punishment for the same course of conduct.
Continue Reading California Court Of Appeal Holds That Plaintiff May Not Collect Both Multiple Damages And Punitive Damages For Same Conduct

Two Bites on a Red AppleThe U.S. Postal Service advertises that “shipping isn’t complicated.”  Taking a page from the Postal Service’s book, the Supreme Court of Louisiana on Tuesday said much the same thing about res judicata.  In a concise unanimous decision, the court reversed an award of punitive damages against Exxon on res judicata grounds.  The court held that a defendant may not be required to relitigate whether its conduct warrants punitive damages after a jury found in its favor on that very question in an earlier case involving the same plaintiff.
Continue Reading SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA STRIKES DOWN PUNITIVE DAMAGES AWARD ON RES JUDICATA GROUNDS

The threat of large punitive damages awards is particularly acute for businesses, large and small.  Like many of its counterparts in other states, the Montana legislature sought to relieve businesses of the unpredictability and hydraulic pressure to settle created by the risk of uncabined punitive awards by imposing a cap on such awards: the lesser of $10 million or 3% of a defendant’s net worth.

615px-Flag_of_Montana.svgThough similar restrictions have generally, but not always, withstood state constitutional challenge, a Montana state trial court judge struck down the cap as unconstitutional a little over three months ago.  The defendant, with support from the Montana Attorney General as intervenor and two Montana business organizations as amici, has urged the Montana Supreme Court to reverse the lower court and uphold the constitutionality of the cap.  (For copies of their briefs, click here and search for case DA 14-0113). 
Continue Reading MONTANA SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW DECISION DECLARING PUNITIVE DAMAGES CAP UNCONSTITUTIONAL