Tobacco.org

Cipollone v. Liggett Group, 505 U.S. 504 (1992), U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument 

Question

Do federally mandated cigarette warnings pre-empt the Cipollones' common law claims against cigarette manufacturers?

Conclusion

In a complicated 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that federally mandated warnings do not bar smokers from suing manufacturers under state personal-injury laws. The justices ruled that such suits cannot be based on claims that cigarette advertising failed to warn smokers of smoking dangers. But the justices also ruled that individuals may press claims alleging that the tobacco companies made fraudulent or inaccurate statements in their advertising or that the companies conspired to mislead people about the health hazards of smoking.

Jump to full article »

Cipollone v. Liggett Group, 505 U.S. 504 (1992), U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument 

Download MP3 File (13524646 bytes)

Attribution: The Oyez Project

Transcript

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

THOMAS CIPOLLONE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ROSE D. CIPOLLONE, Petitioner v. LIGGETT GROUP, INC., ET AL.

No. 90-1038

October 8, 1991

Jump to full article »

CIPOLLONE v. LIGGETT GROUP, INC. 

To summarize our holding: the 1965 Act did not preempt state-law damages actions; the 1969 Act preempts petitioner's claims based on a failure to warn and the neutralization [505 U.S. 504, 531] of federally mandated warnings to the extent that those claims rely on omissions or inclusions in respondents' advertising or promotions; the 1969 Act does not preempt petitioner's claims based on express warranty, intentional fraud and misrepresentation, or conspiracy.

Jump to full article »