Civil Litigation,
Letters
Mar. 29, 2019
Selective application of amendments to states no longer a viable argument
Recent attempts to defend MICRA fall short.
Bruce M. Brusavich
Partner
Abir, Cohen, Treyzon & Salo LLP
Phone: (310) 407-7888
Email: bbrusavich@actslaw.com
Southwestern Univ SOL; Los Angeles CA
Robert S. Peck
Center for Constitutional Litigation, PCPresident
Phone: (202) 944-2874
Email: robert.peck@cclfirm.com
Robert has argued constitutional cases in the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous state supreme courts. He has successfully challenged MICRA-like caps in several states, most recently in Florida.
Fred Hiestand's article attempting to defend MICRA's continued viability after the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Timbs v. Indiana, 39 S. Ct. 682 (2019) ("MICRA's 'cap' comports with right to jury trial under 7th," March 27), ignores the court's clear and unambiguous indication both at oral argument and in the opinion that selective application of the amendments to th...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In