This application for a stay of judgment arose from an order by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal of Louisiana, in which the court held tobacco companies liable for defrauding a class of smokers by misleading them as to the addictive properties of nicotine and ordered the defendants to fund a 10-year, 241 million dollar smoking cessation program for the benefit of class members. The U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of judgment, finding that there was a reasonable probability that the Court would agree to hear the appeal, that there was a significant possibility that the Court would reverse the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal of Louisiana's order on appeal, and that irreparable damage was likely to occur should the order be prosecuted pending appeal. Specifically, the Court noted that the failure of the lower court to require each class member who would benefit from the smoking cessation program to prove reliance upon the tobacco companies' deception raised unique due process questions.
Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al. v. Scott, et al., 561 U.S. ____, 130 S. Ct. 3502, Supreme Court of the United States (2010).
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)
A violation of the right to procedural fairness. For example, a party may claim that a government agency did not consult with public or stakeholders when issuing regulations.
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.
"Applicants complain of many violations of due process, including (among others) denial of the opportunity to cross-examine the named representatives of the class, factually unsupported estimations of the number of class members entitled to relief, and constant revision of the legal basis for the plaintiffs' claim during the course of litigation. Even though the judgment that is the alleged consequence of these claimed errors is massive—more than $250 million—I would not be inclined to believe that this Court would grant certiorari to consider these fact bound contentions that may have no effect on other cases. But one asserted error in particular (and perhaps some of the others as well) implicates constitutional constraints on the allowable alteration of normal process in class actions. This is a fraud case, and in Louisiana the tort of fraud normally requires proof that the plaintiff detrimentally relied on the defendant's misrepresentations. 949 So. 2d, at 1277. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal indicated that members of the plaintiff class who wish to seek individual damages, rather than just access to smoking cessation measures, would have to establish their own reliance on the alleged distortions. Ibid. But the Court of Appeal held that this element need not be proved insofar as the class seeks payment into a fund that will benefit individual plaintiffs, since the defendants are guilty of a "distortion of] the entire body of public knowledge" on which the "class as a whole" has relied. Id., at Thus, the court eliminated any need for plaintiffs to prove, and denied any opportunity for applicants to contest, that any particular plaintiff who benefits from the judgment (much less all of them) believed applicants' distortions and continued to smoke as a result."
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 application for a stay of judgment arose from an order by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal of Louisiana, in which the court held tobacco companies liable for defrauding a class of smokers by misleading them as to the addictive properties of nicotine and ordered the defendants to fund a 10-year, 241 million dollar smoking cessation program for the benefit of class members. The U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of judgment, finding that there was a reasonable probability that the Court would agree to hear the appeal, that there was a significant possibility that the Court would reverse the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal of Louisiana's order on appeal, and that irreparable damage was likely to occur should the order be prosecuted pending appeal. Specifically, the Court noted that the failure of the lower court to require each class member who would benefit from the smoking cessation program to prove reliance upon the tobacco companies' deception raised unique due process questions.