Beachfront Entertainment, Inc. v. Town of Sullivan’s Island, 666 S.E.2d 912 (S.C. 2008)
The legal issue in this case is whether state or federal law expressly or impliedly preempted a local smoke-free ordinance.
Litigation is an important tool to defend and advance public health policy. This tracker provides information and official court documents from select lawsuits within the focus areas of the Public Health Law Center, including commercial tobacco control and healthy eating. Some cases are relevant to cross-cutting issues that affect public health, such as preemption and First Amendment considerations. The Public Health Law Center has supported public health goals as an amicus curiae, or friend-of-the-court, by filing briefs (included here) with relevant information that the court may choose to consider. You can read more about the Function and Role of Amicus Briefs in Public Health Litigation.
McLaughlin v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (Philip Morris v. Schwab), 522 F.3d 215 (2nd Cir. 2008)
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.
Roark & Hardee v. City of Austin, 522 F.3d 533 (5th Cir. 2008)
The legal issue in this case is whether implementation language in a local smoke-free ordinance was unconstitutionally vague.
Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association, 128 S.Ct. 989552 U.S. 364 (2008)
The legal issue in this case is whether a state was federally preempted from regulating the interstate sale of tobacco products via the Internet.
Engle v. Liggett Group, 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006)
The legal issue in this case is whether a jury’s punitive damages award in a tobacco class action lawsuit was valid, when a ruling vacating the award relied on tobacco settlement agreements that barred their use in private lawsuits.
Price v. Philip Morris USA, 848 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2005)
The legal issue in this case is whether Philip Morris was federally authorized and thus immune from liability for deceptively advertising and selling its “light” cigarettes.
Lorillard Tobacco Company v. American Legacy Foundation, 903 A.2d 728 (Del. 2006)
The legal issue in this case is whether an anti-tobacco advertising campaign vilified a tobacco company in violation of the terms of the tobacco Master Settlement Agreement.
People of the State of California, ex rel. Bill Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, Co., 124 P.3d 408 (Cal. 2005)
The legal issue in this case is whether distributing free cigarette samples in a private booth on public grounds violated a California statute, whether federal law preempted the statute, and whether a fine against the tobacco company of almost $15 million was reasonable.
Dayna Craft v. Philip Morris, 190 S.W.3d 368 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005)
The legal issue in this case is whether the members of a class of plaintiffs in a tobacco class action can be certified under the Merchandising Practice Act for making false advertising claims about the company’s “light” cigarettes.
In Re Simon II Litigation v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 407 F.3d 125 (2nd Cir. 2005)
The legal issue in this case is whether a consolidated class action lawsuit comprised of injured smokers would violate the due process rights of persons excluded from the class, since it would deny them the right to seek future punitive damages.