Big John's Billiards Inc. v. State of Nebraska et al.
A smoke-free law prohibited smoking in public places and places of employment, except for certain facilities, including: (1) certain guestrooms in hotels and lodging, (2) tobacco retail outlets, and (3) cigar bars. A billiards hall challenged the law, because the law prohibited smoking in some places but not others, which could be considered discriminatory (here called "special legislation"). The court found that the similarity between guestrooms and private residences was sufficient to allow smoking. By contrast, tobacco retail shops and cigar bars must be treated the same as other public places and work places under the law, so the exceptions allowing smoking there were unconstitutional. The court also found that the smoke-free law was not a regulatory taking and did not impair contract rights. The unconstitutional provisions were severable, so the rest of the smoke-free law was upheld.
Big John's Billiards, Inc. v. State of Nebraska et al., and Douglas County Health Dep't., 288 Neb. 938 (Aug. 29, 2014)
Tobacco companies or front groups may challenge any legislative or regulatory measure that affects their business interests. Unlike public interest litigation, these cases seek to weaken health measures. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional.
A violation of property rights, sometimes in the form of an expropriation or a taking by the government. The tobacco industry may argue that regulations amount to a taking of property rights because they prevent the use of intellectual property such as trademarks.
The court might consider procedural matters without touching the merits of the case. These might include: improper joinder, when third parties, such as Health NGOs or government officials, seek to become parties to the suit; lack of standing, where a plaintiff fails to meet the minimum requirements to bring suit; lack of personal jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction to rule over the defendant; or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction over the issue at suit.
Any combustible tobacco product that is designed to be smoked – other than cigarettes – including cigars, cigarillos, little cigars, blunts, and bidis or beedis (small, flavored filterless Indian cigarettes).
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.
"The exemption for cigar bars was not part of the Act as it was originally enacted. Instead, it was enacted by subsequent legislation in 2009. The Introducer’s Statement of Intent on the proposed bill specifically stated that the purpose of the exemption was “to provide protection for businesses currently operating in the state as ‘cigar bars.’” During debate, the senator who introduced the bill argued that cigar bars should be exempt from the Act because they existed for the purpose of allowing smoking.
There is no substantial difference in circumstances between cigar bars and other public places or places of employment that justifies treating cigars bars differently. Indeed, the exemption is directly contrary to the purpose of the Act, which is to protect the public health by limiting exposure to secondhand smoke. The exemption in § 71-5730(4) for cigar bars is unconstitutional special legislation."
"We conclude that there is no difference in circumstances between tobacco retail outlets and all other public places and places of employment so as to justify the expediency of diverse legislation and that the exemption in § 71-5730(3) is therefore unconstitutional special legislation. The mere fact that tobacco retail outlets sell only tobacco products does not distinguish them in any substantial way from other public places or places of employment. And allowing patrons of such shops to smoke simply because it is convenient does not comport with the purpose of the Act, which is to protect the public and employees from the dangers of secondhand smoke."
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.
A smoke-free law prohibited smoking in public places and places of employment, except for certain facilities, including: (1) certain guestrooms in hotels and lodging, (2) tobacco retail outlets, and (3) cigar bars. A billiards hall challenged the law, because the law prohibited smoking in some places but not others, which could be considered discriminatory (here called "special legislation"). The court found that the similarity between guestrooms and private residences was sufficient to allow smoking. By contrast, tobacco retail shops and cigar bars must be treated the same as other public places and work places under the law, so the exceptions allowing smoking there were unconstitutional. The court also found that the smoke-free law was not a regulatory taking and did not impair contract rights. The unconstitutional provisions were severable, so the rest of the smoke-free law was upheld.