TXO Production Corp., a subsidiary of USX, approached Alliance Resources Corp. in 1984 following a recommendation to recover oil and gas under the Blevins Tract by their geologists.

[1][2] TXO originally filed a complaint against Alliance to remove a cloud on title on the oil and gas rights for the site.

TXO argued that no cause of action for slander of title existed or had been established, that West Virginia Rules of Evidence had been violated by introducing testimony of lawyers involved in litigation against TXO elsewhere, and that the award of $10 million violated the Due Process Clause, citing Pacific Mutual Life Ins.

Just as important, an award of this magnitude is necessary to discourage TXO from continuing its pattern and practice of fraud, trickery and deceit.

Thus, he suggested that the inquiries for future appeals should focus on whether the jury was motivated by "bias, passion, or prejudice" rather than a concern for deterrence and retribution, disregarding the size of the award.

[4] If a rational jury provided the same information that was presented at trial could reasonably reach the same verdict and punitive damages award, Kennedy would uphold it against a substantive due process argument.

[3] Like Kennedy, O'Connor was concerned that a jury with the power to issue such large awards could be influenced by bias, passion, or prejudice, especially when not given proper instructions.

[2] Further, she pointed out that the amount TXO stood to gain from their fraudulent actions was not mentioned to the jury, calling it "an after-the-fact rationalization invented by counsel to defend this startling award on appeal.

[4] Finally, she pointed out that the three largest awards ever upheld in West Virginia were against out-of-state defendants like TXO.

[4] The American Tort Reform Association, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of TXO, claimed that punitive damage awards have grown too large in both size and frequency.

[2] The decision was also cited in claims that judicial regulation of punitive damages is inconsistent and should be replaced by national legislation.

[3] Just a year later, the Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants case and its surrounding publicity amplified those calls for tort reform.