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.
Several states objected to being certified by the court as part of a settlement class for purposes of dispensing with smoking-related claims. The states argued that the federal court lacked jurisdiction to settle their claims because the Immunity Provision of the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibited federal court jurisdiction over the states or their agencies without their consent. The Court found that no evidence had been presented indicating the plaintiffs' consent to participate in the class and consequently ordered the states and their agencies stricken from the settlement class.