Plaintiffs, two individuals and a certified class of persons, claimed that they were harmed by Philip Morris, Inc.’s alleged violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by its use of "false and fraudulent" marketing practices for its tobacco products. Philip Morris denied the allegations, but the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, awarded the plaintiffs compensation and punitive damages totaling $10.1 billion. The Circuit Court set the amount of an appeal bond at $12 billion but reduced it at Philip Morris’s request. Plaintiffs filed a motion to change the amount of the bond, arguing that the new amount would not be enough to cover the potential costs of appeal proceedings. The Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District, concluded that a decision would require resolution of factual issues and sent the case back to the circuit court to determine the sufficiency of the appeal bond.
Price, et al. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 793 N.E.2d 942 (Ill. App., 2003).
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.
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 court might consider procedural matters without touching the merits of the case. These might include: improper joinder, when third parties, such as Health NGOs or government officials, seek to become parties to the suit; lack of standing, where a plaintiff fails to meet the minimum requirements to bring suit; lack of personal jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction to rule over the defendant; or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction over the issue at suit.
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.
"Philip Morris next argues that the plaintiffs should be estopped from challenging the stay order because the plaintiffs represented to the Illinois Supreme Court that they were adequately protected by the present bond and stay when Philip Morris sought to bypass the appellate court. We have reviewed the record and find that this claim is unsupported. The plaintiffs acknowledged the existence of the bond and stay. We have not been directed to any portion of the record where the plaintiffs expressed satisfaction with the bond or accepted its sufficiency.
Finally, Philip Morris argues that the United States and Illinois Constitutions guarantee its right to appeal. It claims that it cannot post a bond in conformity with Rule 305(a) and, therefore, its constitutional right to appeal has been violated. The claim is meritless. We addressed this matter earlier in this opinion and decline to rehash the matter. Suffice it to say that the right to a stay and the right to appeal are separate and independent. Philip Morris may appeal with or without a bond and with or without a stay.
There is no constitutional deprivation. See Jack Spring, Inc., 50 Ill.2d 351, 280 N.E.2d 208"
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.
Plaintiffs, two individuals and a certified class of persons, claimed that they were harmed by Philip Morris, Inc.’s alleged violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by its use of "false and fraudulent" marketing practices for its tobacco products. Philip Morris denied the allegations, but the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, awarded the plaintiffs compensation and punitive damages totaling $10.1 billion. The Circuit Court set the amount of an appeal bond at $12 billion but reduced it at Philip Morris’s request. Plaintiffs filed a motion to change the amount of the bond, arguing that the new amount would not be enough to cover the potential costs of appeal proceedings. The Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District, concluded that a decision would require resolution of factual issues and sent the case back to the circuit court to determine the sufficiency of the appeal bond.