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.
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.
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.