Two individuals brought an action in state court against a tobacco company under Minnesota's consumer protection law and the doctrine of fraud, seeking damages and restitution for the company's manufacturing and marketing practices designed to deceive the public as to the harmful health effects of its "lights" cigarettes. Following an unsuccessful attempt to remove the case to federal court, the defendants moved for removal a second time over two years after the original filing of the complaint, arguing that federal officer jurisdiction should apply to this case in light of a holding in the Eighth Circuit that recognizes federal officer jurisdiction in a separate, but similar case. The Court held that the defendants' motion for removal was untimely despite the recent ruling by the Eighth Circuit and remanded the case to state court.
Dahl, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., 478 F.3d 965, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (2007).
United States
Feb 28, 2007
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
An individual or organization may seek civil damages against a tobacco company based on the claim that the use of tobacco products causes disease or death. Some of these cases will relate to general tobacco products, while others will relate to specific subcategories of tobacco products--for example, light or low products, menthol or other flavored products. Additionally, there may be cases relating to exposure to secondhand smoke.
Measures to regulate the marketing on tobacco packages. This includes both bans on false, misleading, deceptive packaging, as well as required health warnings on packaging.
(See FCTC Art. 11)
Any violation of a law designed to ensure fair trade, competition, or the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. For example, a government may require businesses to disclose detailed information about products—particularly in areas where safety or public health is an issue.
The tobacco industry may have perpetrated a fraud upon the public or the courts by presenting false information or deliberately hiding known-facts.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
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.
"This case is one of many across the country and within our circuit which challenge the marketing, advertising, and distribution of "light" cigarettes. Plaintiffs filed their complaint in state court on April 3, 2003, seeking damages and restitution for R.J. Reynolds' "unfair business practices and/or deceptive and unlawful conduct in connection with the manufacture, distribution, promotion, marketing, and sale" of its light cigarettes. Plaintiffs claim that R.J. Reynolds: (l) designed its light cigarettes to register lower levels of tar and nicotine than what would actually be ingested by consumers, (2) intentionally misrepresented to consumers that its light cigarettes would deliver less tar and nicotine than other cigarettes, (3) intentionally misrepresented that its light cigarettes were healthy alternatives to other cigarettes, and (4) continued to sell light cigarettes as a healthy alternative knowing this to be false."
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.
Two individuals brought an action in state court against a tobacco company under Minnesota's consumer protection law and the doctrine of fraud, seeking damages and restitution for the company's manufacturing and marketing practices designed to deceive the public as to the harmful health effects of its "lights" cigarettes. Following an unsuccessful attempt to remove the case to federal court, the defendants moved for removal a second time over two years after the original filing of the complaint, arguing that federal officer jurisdiction should apply to this case in light of a holding in the Eighth Circuit that recognizes federal officer jurisdiction in a separate, but similar case. The Court held that the defendants' motion for removal was untimely despite the recent ruling by the Eighth Circuit and remanded the case to state court.