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 plaintiffs, a class of smokers, filed an action against the defendants, tobacco companies, for breach of warranty, unfair, deceptive or fraudulent business practices, unfair competition and false advertising and unconscionable acts and practices in violation of Ohio's Consumer Protection Statutes and breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for ordinary use. The plaintiffs claimed harms to health created by addictive effects of nicotine and defendants' actions since the 1950s to undermine and distort information on smoking and health that was shared with the public. The defendants successfully removed the case to federal court, and now, plaintiffs moved to remand case to state court. Because the plaintiffs did not have "an arguably reasonable basis" for recovery from defendants, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand.