The World Trade Organization determines flavored cigarette prohibition is inconsistent with WTO Trade Agreement.
NYC ordinance prohibiting the use of coupons and discounts for tobacco products is upheld.
The legal issue in this case is whether Bullitt County Board of Health has the authority to promulgate a countywide smoke-free policy that regulates indoor smoking in public buildings, workplaces and other specified public areas.
The legal issue in this case is whether the Free Speech Clause of the California Constitution extends so far into the ordinary business of government as to forbid regulation of basic economic activity whenever that activity happens to involve language or information, including the enactment of a statute that requires the gathering and mailing of unadorned statistical data.
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.
Providence’s law prohibiting the redemption of coupons and the sale of flavored tobacco products is upheld.
The case involves a dispute about secondhand smoke between two neighbors living in adjoining townhouses.
NYC’s law prohibiting the sale of flavored tobacco products is upheld.
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.