Tobacco industry appeal rejected in Florida case
Legal News Center
[##_1L|1225891609.jpg|width="104" height="138" alt=""|_##]The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a tobacco industry appeal on two issues in a Florida class-action case that has already resulted in a $145 billion punitive award against the cigarette makers being overturned. The industry appealed a ruling by the Florida Supreme Court last year that jury findings, including deception and negligence by the companies, could be used in individual lawsuits by the former class members.
In the other issue appealed to the nation's highest court, the industry said the generalized jury findings rested on evidence, arguments and theories of liability that were preempted by a federal law, the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act.
A Miami jury ruled in 2000 that the tobacco companies deceived smokers about the dangers of cigarettes and ordered the companies to pay $145 billion to ailing Florida smokers, estimated to number about 700,000.
The case, filed by Miami Beach pediatrician Howard Engle in 1994, was the first smokers' lawsuit to be certified as a class action.
But a Florida appeals court overturned the punitive damages award and decertified the class action, a ruling upheld by the Florida Supreme Court.
Defendants in the case included Altria Group Inc's Philip Morris USA unit; the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co and Brown & Williamson units of Reynolds American Inc; the Lorillard Tobacco Co unit of Loews Corp., which trades as Carolina Group; and Vector Group Ltd's Liggett.
In the Supreme Court appeal, the companies said the constitutional right of due process "prohibits a state court from giving preclusive effect to a jury verdict when it is impossible to discern which of numerous alternative grounds formed the basis for the jury's finding of wrongful conduct."
They also argued that a plaintiff may not avoid federal preemption under a 1992 Supreme Court ruling by merely invoking characterizations such as "fraud" and "negligence."
Related listings
-
Justices to consider voter identification
Legal News Center 09/28/2007[##_1L|1115733648.jpg|width="180" height="135" alt=""|_##]The Supreme Court said Tuesday that it will consider whether state laws requiring voters to present photo identification at polling places unfairly discriminate against the poor and minorities...
-
Judge: No Breath Tests for Pedestrians
Legal News Center 09/27/2007[##_1L|1022404394.jpg|width="127" height="85" alt=""|_##]A federal judge on Wednesday blocked a Michigan law that requires pedestrians under 21 to submit to a breath test without a search warrant. The American Civil Liberties Union, which had sued on...
-
High court to review lethal injection
Legal News Center 09/26/2007[##_1L|1000547554.jpg|width="180" height="135" alt=""|_##]Facing near legal chaos in states that use the death penalty, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision Tuesday to review a Kentucky lethal injection case signals the justices are prepared to try to s...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.