Porter v. United Home Insurance Company

W.D. Oklahoma

Porter v. United Home Insurance Company

DecidedDecember 18, 2020

Docket5:20-cv-01079

StatusUnknown

This text of Porter v. United Home Insurance Company (Porter v. United Home Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Porter v. United Home Insurance Company, (W.D. Okla. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

EDDY PORTER and JANET ) PORTER, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) -vs- ) Case No. CIV-20-1079-F ) UNITED HOME AND INSURANCE ) COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER Defendant has filed a notice (doc. no. 10) of a constitutional question. The notice states that defendant is challenging the constitutionality of 23 O.S. § 9.1 on the grounds that Oklahoma’s punitive damages statute violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and does not comply with standards and limitations set forth by the United States Supreme Court. Defendant states that its challenge to the constitutionality of § 9.1 was raised in its answer, filed on October 30, 2020 (doc. no. 4), a copy of which is attached to the notice. The State of Oklahoma is not a party to this action. The subject matter of the constitutional issue affects the public interest. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2403 and Rule 5.1, Fed. R. Civ. P., require the court to certify the above facts to the Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, and the court hereby does so. See, State of Oklahoma v. Pope, 516 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2008) (remanding where notice not given to United States Attorney General). Accordingly, if he wishes to do so, the Oklahoma State Attorney General is granted leave to intervene in this action for purposes of presenting evidence and argument on the constitutional challenge raised by the defendant. The State Attorney General may intervene within sixty days of the date of this order. The clerk is DIRECTED to provide the State Attorney General with a copy of this order, a copy of defendant’s notice of constitutional question (doc. no. 10) including the exhibit (doc. no. 10-1), which is a copy of defendant’s answer (originally filed at doc. no. 4), and a copy of the court’s docket sheet in this action as it now stands. The clerk shall file the transmission email. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18" day of December, 2020.

STEPHEN P. [Pritt UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20-1079p001.docx

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

EDDY PORTER and JANET ) PORTER, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) -vs- ) Case No. CIV-20-1079-F ) UNITED HOME AND INSURANCE ) COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER Defendant has filed a notice (doc. no. 10) of a constitutional question. The notice states that defendant is challenging the constitutionality of 23 O.S. § 9.1 on the grounds that Oklahoma’s punitive damages statute violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and does not comply with standards and limitations set forth by the United States Supreme Court. Defendant states that its challenge to the constitutionality of § 9.1 was raised in its answer, filed on October 30, 2020 (doc. no. 4), a copy of which is attached to the notice. The State of Oklahoma is not a party to this action. The subject matter of the constitutional issue affects the public interest. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2403 and Rule 5.1, Fed. R. Civ. P., require the court to certify the above facts to the Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, and the court hereby does so. See, State of Oklahoma v. Pope, 516 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2008) (remanding where notice not given to United States Attorney General). Accordingly, if he wishes to do so, the Oklahoma State Attorney General is granted leave to intervene in this action for purposes of presenting evidence and argument on the constitutional challenge raised by the defendant. The State Attorney General may intervene within sixty days of the date of this order. The clerk is DIRECTED to provide the State Attorney General with a copy of this order, a copy of defendant’s notice of constitutional question (doc. no. 10) including the exhibit (doc. no. 10-1), which is a copy of defendant’s answer (originally filed at doc. no. 4), and a copy of the court’s docket sheet in this action as it now stands. The clerk shall file the transmission email. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18" day of December, 2020.

STEPHEN P. [Pritt UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20-1079p001.docx

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Porter v. United Home Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porter-v-united-home-insurance-company-okwd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack