The appellants, representatives of a smoker who died from lung cancer and the smoker's wife, filed a lawsuit against a tobacco company and a tobacco industry trade group (now appellees) for falsely claiming that the brand of cigarettes that the decedent smoked was safer than other brands, among other issues. The trial court found in favor of the defendants and ruled also that the plaintiffs raised too many issues in a post trial statement, thereby waiving them for appeal. (Filed pursuant to the Pennsylvania rules of appellate procedure, the post trial statement informs the trial judge of alleged errors at the trial level.) Appellants appealed to the Superior Court which affirmed the waiver except as to two issues. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that the number of issues raised in the post-trial statement by itself did not provide a basis for denying appellate review where an appeal otherwise complies with appellate practice. The Court remanded the case to the Superior Court, instructing it to consider more comprehensively the eight issues plaintiffs ultimately had decided to pursue in their appeal to the Superior Court.
Eiser v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., et al., 595 Pa. 366, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (2007).
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.
"In sum, the number of issues raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement does not, without more, provide a basis upon which to deny appellate review where an appeal otherwise complies with the mandates of appellate practice. In a rare case, like Kanter, where a trial court concludes there was an attempt to thwart the appellate process by including an exceptionally large number of issues in a Rule 1925(b) statement, waiver may result.19 While the sheer number of issues raised here posed a considerable burden on the trial court to prepare its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the fact remains that the trial court’s attention was directed to this matter for several years prior to trial, for some two weeks during the trial itself, and for approximately a year and a half afterward. Thus, perhaps, the opinion required a longer than usual period to prepare."
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 appellants, representatives of a smoker who died from lung cancer and the smoker's wife, filed a lawsuit against a tobacco company and a tobacco industry trade group (now appellees) for falsely claiming that the brand of cigarettes that the decedent smoked was safer than other brands, among other issues. The trial court found in favor of the defendants and ruled also that the plaintiffs raised too many issues in a post trial statement, thereby waiving them for appeal. (Filed pursuant to the Pennsylvania rules of appellate procedure, the post trial statement informs the trial judge of alleged errors at the trial level.) Appellants appealed to the Superior Court which affirmed the waiver except as to two issues. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that the number of issues raised in the post-trial statement by itself did not provide a basis for denying appellate review where an appeal otherwise complies with appellate practice. The Court remanded the case to the Superior Court, instructing it to consider more comprehensively the eight issues plaintiffs ultimately had decided to pursue in their appeal to the Superior Court.