The plaintiffs sought interlocutory review of the trial court's order denying their motion for class certification in the case brought against the defendants under the Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA) for making false representations by using the term “lights” in their “Marlboro Lights” cigarettes and the statement “lowered tar and nicotine” on the package. The Court established that, in Oregon, interlocutory appeal is not appropriate where plaintiffs seek class certification in a case brought under the UTPA because the case would not be materially advanced toward the ultimate termination of the litigation.
Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc., 45 P.3d 298, Oregon Court of Appeals (2006).
Some jurisdictions allow an individual or organization to initiate an action against another private party who is not following a particular law. For example, a person may sue a restaurant that allows smoking despite a smoke free law. If the plaintiff is claiming the violation of the law caused physical harm, this may also be a personal injury case.
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.
"Here, we conclude that an immediate appeal is unlikely to materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. As defendants assert, the issues regarding interpretation of the UTPA and class certification—although important—will be before this court on appeal from a final judgment. And, because those issues primarily involve legal, not factual, questions, such a judgment may be forthcoming in the form of summary judgment or some other pretrial disposition."
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 sought interlocutory review of the trial court's order denying their motion for class certification in the case brought against the defendants under the Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA) for making false representations by using the term “lights” in their “Marlboro Lights” cigarettes and the statement “lowered tar and nicotine” on the package. The Court established that, in Oregon, interlocutory appeal is not appropriate where plaintiffs seek class certification in a case brought under the UTPA because the case would not be materially advanced toward the ultimate termination of the litigation.