Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
Jump to full article »
If there were any hazard in cigarettes manufactured by this defendant, which this defendant denies, Rose D. Cipollone was on notice of the same and able to protect herself. If Rose D. Cipollone consumed cigarettes, she did so solely by reason of her own choice.Liggett Group court papers in the Cipollone case. It's always instructive to look back once in awhile. This 1985 NYT article is a perceptive look at Cipollone and the litigation climate of the day.
[A]dvocacy ads that bring desperately needed revenue to news organizations can pollute the well of public knowledge. Morton Mintz, in a scathing rebuke of the Washington Legal Foundation's May 4 anti-trial lawyer ad in the NYT.
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.Supreme Court Justice Stevens, in the 1992 Cipollone case; he may have to overturn himself in Good.