Limitations regarding the use of quotes
The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
Five tobacco companies and three private employers brought an action against the Department of Labor and Industries, claiming that a regulation promulgated by the Department to control exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) within enclosed workplaces was invalidly adopted. The Court upheld the validity of the regulation, finding that the administrative record and testimony of Department officials provided the requisite rationale in support of the regulation. The Court further concluded that the Department fulfilled its statutory obligations and acted rationally when promulgating the regulation. In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that scientific certainty of a health risk is not needed to take regulatory action.