Larry Grant v. Tom Bennett, et al.

This dispute concerns the potential harm aspect of the constitutional test for exemplary damages. Bennett committed malicious prosecution by procuring a felony indictment against Grant—who was a witness against him in a different civil case. Pet. App. 68a. As Grant was merely a ranch hand, of limited means, his provable actual damages were a modest $10,703. Id. at 5a. The courts thus had to confront the lurking question of “potential harm.” The Texas Supreme Court held that the Constitution bars States from keying exemplary damages to “potential harm” absent proof that each such harm was statistically likely. Id. at 17a. The questions presented are:

1. Whether States can use exemplary damages to punish or deter classes of particularly egregious misconduct that threaten enormous harm to both private and public interests, without needing to show “to a probability” (Pet. App. 15a) that each specific threatened harm is statistically likely.

2. Whether the Gore framework remains viable if the “actual or potential harm” analysis prevents States from imposing exemplary damages that are substantial enough to meaningfully deter or punish an intentional wrongdoer like Bennett, who has targeted a financially vulnerable victim.