The legal issue in this case is whether Defendant Lorillard was denied a fair trial; the trial court erred in denying Lorillard’s post-trial motions; and the award of compensatory and punitive damage was fair.
National Association of Tobacco Outlets v. City of Providence (U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the 1st Circuit) (2013)
Providence’s law prohibiting the redemption of coupons and the sale of flavored tobacco products is upheld.
The legal issue in this case is whether the Circuit Court erred (1) in denying Appellant’s motion for a preliminary injunction based on a finding that Appellant had only demonstrated that secondhand smoke, a known carcinogen, was an “offensive odor” and therefore not a nuisance; (2) in requiring “medical evidence demonstrating an unfavorable health condition” or “materially diminished property value” before determining the secondhand smoke to be a nuisance warranting the granting of a preliminary injunction; and (3) in applying the deferential “business judgment rule” in the context of a residential common interest community as opposed to the “reasonableness” standard.
NYC’s law prohibiting the sale of flavored tobacco products is upheld.
Discount Tobacco City & Lottery, Inc. v. United States/Commonwealth Brands, Inc. et al. v. United States (2009)
The legal issue in this case is whether various provisions in the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act violate tobacco companies’ First Amendment rights to free speech and due process in their marketing efforts, and constitute an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment.
The legal issue in this case is whether an amendment to state law that is not a general law for purposes of home-rule analysis, and that purports to preempt the home rule authority of Ohio cities to address serious public health problems such as food-based health disparities, violates the Ohio constitution’s home rule amendment and one-subject rule.
The FDA’s Graphic Warning Rule is struck down as unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
After the landmark decision holding major tobacco companies liable for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), the tobacco industry attempted to vacate the remedies imposed by the court.
The legal issue in this case is whether the Ohio Department of Health’s enforcement of Ohio’s Smoke Free Workplace Act violates separation of power principles, impedes property rights, and is a proper use of police powers, and whether the Court of Appeals was correct in ruling that it was improper for the appellants to use a declaratory judgment action in their counter-claims to collaterally attack the ten final orders finding violations.
NYC’s point-of-sale cigarette graphic warning requirement is struck down as preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA).
The legal issue in this case is whether a private lawsuit alleging a consumer protection law violation by a tobacco manufacturer should be dismissed for lack of public benefit.
Gate City Billiards Country Club v. Guilford County Department of Public Health, 724 S.E.2d 70 (N.C. Ct. of Appeals (2010)
The legal issue in this case is whether the private club exemption in North Carolina’s statewide smoke-free legislation violates the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Sottera Inc. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration/Smoking Everywhere, Inc. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2009)
The FDA can only regulate e-cigarettes as a tobacco product, unless a product is specifically being marketed as a cessation device.
The legal issue in this case is whether a city and county ordinance prohibiting the sale of tobacco products in stand-alone pharmacies is valid.
The legal issue in this case is whether a state court has inherent authority over its own procedural rules.
The issue in this case is the tension between free trade and public health which, in the case of tobacco sales, is undermined by free trade.
The legal issue in this case is whether tobacco companies can be sued under state law for deceptive advertising of “light” cigarettes or whether federal law prohibits such lawsuits.
The legal issue in this case is whether state or federal law expressly or impliedly preempted a local smoke-free ordinance.
The legal issue in this case is whether civil racketeering claims of consumers of “light” cigarettes can serve as a basis for a nationwide class action lawsuit of “light” cigarette smokers.
The legal issue in this case is whether implementation language in a local smoke-free ordinance was unconstitutionally vague.