Related Services/Industries
- Litigation
Related Professionals
- David B. Fawcett
Media Contact
Tracie Gliozzi
Director of Communications and Public Relations T: 412 562 1969
Pittsburgh Litigation Attorney Dave Fawcett Featured in Post-Gazette Article, Noted in Multiple Other Sources on Supreme Court's Hearing of Caperton v. Massey
March 4, 2009
David B. Fawcett — a shareholder in the Litigation Section of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney's Pittsburgh office — was featured in a March 1, 2009, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article titled, "Top court to hear W.Va. judicial bias case Tuesday." The article reported on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to hear the ongoing case of Caperton v. Massey — a case in which Fawcett has been involved for more than a decade.
According to the article, "The question of whether campaign contributions by one of West Virginia's most powerful business executives prevented justice from being done in that state's highest court" got a much anticipated hearing Tuesday, March 3, before the U.S. Supreme Court.
In November 2008, the court agreed to hear the highly publicized West Virginia case in which state Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin refused to recuse himself from a case involving Massey Energy, despite the fact that the company's CEO had made a $3 million contribution to Justice Benjamin's campaign. He then joined a 3-2 decision that reversed a multimillion-dollar damage award against Massey Energy.
Fawcett, as well as Reed Smith attorney Bruce Stanley, are representing Harman Coal Company — owned by Hugh Caperton who, according to the article, wants the court to overturn the ruling. The court threw out the 2002 lower court verdict ordering Massey to pay Caperton $50 million in damages.
Fawcett and Stanley are arguing that the case comes down to a fundamental right in the United States — the right to a fair trial. "Their argument: Mr. Blankenship's campaign contributions 'created an objective probability that [Justice Benjamin] was biased in favor of Massey,'" stated the article.
The article went on to say, "Massey's attorneys counter that the Supreme Court has never ruled that the constitution requires judges to step down for a 'probability of bias.' Furthermore, most of Mr. Blankenship's money went to defeat Justice Benjamin's opponent in the 2004 election, not to elect Justice Benjamin, Massey's attorneys argued in their brief."
Legal experts are saying that it will be hard for the Supreme Court to draw a line on the issue.
In addition to the Post-Gazette, various news outlets have reported on the case, including The Washington Post, Associated Press, National Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News, Forbes.com, The National Law Journal, Los Angeles Times, The Charleston Gazette, The Baltimore Sun, The West Virginia Record, The Economist and USA TODAY.
According to the article, "The question of whether campaign contributions by one of West Virginia's most powerful business executives prevented justice from being done in that state's highest court" got a much anticipated hearing Tuesday, March 3, before the U.S. Supreme Court.
In November 2008, the court agreed to hear the highly publicized West Virginia case in which state Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin refused to recuse himself from a case involving Massey Energy, despite the fact that the company's CEO had made a $3 million contribution to Justice Benjamin's campaign. He then joined a 3-2 decision that reversed a multimillion-dollar damage award against Massey Energy.
Fawcett, as well as Reed Smith attorney Bruce Stanley, are representing Harman Coal Company — owned by Hugh Caperton who, according to the article, wants the court to overturn the ruling. The court threw out the 2002 lower court verdict ordering Massey to pay Caperton $50 million in damages.
Fawcett and Stanley are arguing that the case comes down to a fundamental right in the United States — the right to a fair trial. "Their argument: Mr. Blankenship's campaign contributions 'created an objective probability that [Justice Benjamin] was biased in favor of Massey,'" stated the article.
The article went on to say, "Massey's attorneys counter that the Supreme Court has never ruled that the constitution requires judges to step down for a 'probability of bias.' Furthermore, most of Mr. Blankenship's money went to defeat Justice Benjamin's opponent in the 2004 election, not to elect Justice Benjamin, Massey's attorneys argued in their brief."
Legal experts are saying that it will be hard for the Supreme Court to draw a line on the issue.
In addition to the Post-Gazette, various news outlets have reported on the case, including The Washington Post, Associated Press, National Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News, Forbes.com, The National Law Journal, Los Angeles Times, The Charleston Gazette, The Baltimore Sun, The West Virginia Record, The Economist and USA TODAY.