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.
Plaintiffs brought action against several tobacco manufacturers for diseases allegedly caused by smoking. British American Tobacco moved to dismiss the action based on lack of personal jurisdiction because the company was based in Great Britain. Plaintiffs argued, however, that the defendant had sufficient connection with the State of Texas and that the Court's exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant would not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice". The Court found controlling ADR (stock sale) programs along with activities seeking to attract U.S. investors constituted continuous and systematic activity in the United States and was sufficient to establish jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.