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.
Owner of a nightclub was cited by municipal inspectors for allowing smoking in the club. After the club-owner first contested the fine in Municipal Court, he was convicted in a criminal offense for violating his duty as an owner to enforce the smoke free law and the fine was increased. His appeal to the District Court was denied. In this case, The Supreme Court denied the club-owner’s petition for appeal based on selective enforcement, stating that the fact that the inspectors did not cite any individual smokers is not sufficient to grant the petition. The Court added that in future cases, enforcement agencies should enforce the law against smokers as well as owners.