Tobacco.org

U.S. Supreme Court Reject Final Appeal in Williams Case and Opens Door for High Punitive Damages Against Cigarette Companies 

“After a reference in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in State Farm v. Campbell that due process generally requires a limit of a single-digit ratio between the punitive damages and the underlying compensatory damages in a case, there was speculation that such a limit would be required even in tobacco products liability cases. However, the Oregon Supreme Court had rightly held that the degree of Philip Morris’ reprehensibility was so severe that due process provided for a ratio beyond an artificial limit of single digits,” said Edward L. Sweda, Jr., Senior Attorney for the Tobacco Products Liability Project (TPLP). “I am especially delighted that the Williams family has finally achieved victory in its attempt to hold Philip Morris accountable in a court of law for its reprehensible misconduct,” Sweda added.

“Today’s order marks the third consecutive major defeat for the tobacco industry before the U.S. Supreme Court,” said TPLP's Director Mark Gottlieb, noting that in June 2007 the Court had unanimously rejected Philip Morris’ attempted defense of light cigarette lawsuits on the historically inaccurate grounds that the Federal Trade Commission had “authorized” the company’s conduct regarding using descriptors of light cigarettes. Last December, the Court, in Altria Group. Inc. v. Good, rejected Philip Morris’ argument that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act preempts consumer protection lawsuits over the company’s light cigarette scam. "Today's ruling removes any doubt that very high punitive damages are available against cigarette companies, including in the 8,000 or so cases moving to trial in Florida," Gottlieb concluded.

Jump to full article »

• U.S. Supreme Court Dismisses Punitive Damages Appeal 

"While we had hoped for a different outcome, the Supreme Court has decided not to review a narrow procedural ruling by the state court. Today's decision does not impact the court's earlier decisions on punitive damages," said Murray Garnick, Altria Client Services senior vice president and associate general counsel, speaking on behalf of Philip Morris USA. "Importantly, the Court did not disturb its 2007 Williams decision which held that a jury may not impose punitive damages for harm caused to anyone other than the plaintiff in a particular case," added Garnick.

The Court's decision, however, does not end the dispute, which has been ongoing for more than a decade. Oregon state law requires that sixty percent of any punitive damages award be paid to the state. Philip Morris USA believes that the Master Settlement Agreement, to which Oregon is a party, precludes the state from collecting any punitive damages award from the company. Oregon and Philip Morris USA are parties to a proceeding in Oregon state court that seeks a determination of whether the MSA bars the state from collecting punitive damages. If Philip Morris USA prevails, the company would be obligated to pay only the remaining forty percent of the punitive damages award to the plaintiff in this case.

Jump to full article »

KALL: Taking A Lost Case to the Supreme Court-- Three Times? 

It is outrageously wrong that Altria/R.J. Reynolds tobacco could, because of its immense wealth and deep pockets, delay and abuse the system by re-appealing two more times after the original decision in 2002, which rejected the original $80 million award, saying, in a despicably pro-business decision, that the maximum punitive damage should be nine times actual economic loss. This is despicable because it takes the bottom up power of the people in the shape of the jury, to decide the appropriate punishment. . . .

It's not over yet. There will be a final appeal to the Oregon Supreme court. They have a record the state of Oregon can be proud of.

But let's take a moment to think about appealing the rulings of the supreme court. I'm no attorney, but what if Al Gore had done it?

The Supreme court is broken. The quintet is an affliction upon democracy and the people of the nation and the planet. The five supremes, with Justice Thomas being rated the most conservative-- the biggest whore-- have shown their true colors. Their sense of justice is filtered through a corporate perspective. PEople can't appeal to the supreme court three times. Oh they may be allowed to, but no-one has the resources. There is something very wrong and it needs to be fixed.

Jump to full article »

UPDATE: US Supreme Court Dismisses Philip Morris Damages Appeal 

The Supreme Court's dismissal also means no new legal precedent was set on punitive damages, a development that is likely to disappoint business groups that have continued to press for additional punitive damages guidance from the high court.

The dismissal came in a short court order that offered no details on why the appeal was dismissed. No justices dissented from the dismissal.

Jump to full article »

• Tobacco punitive verdict stands 

The Supreme Court chose on Tuesday, after examining the issue for the third time, not to disturb a punitive damages verdict now totaling more than $150 million, won by the widow of a heavy smoker who died of lung cancer. The Court dismissed a new appeal by Philip Morris USA, saying it had “improvidently granted” review last June. The case, heard on Dec. 3, was Philip Morris USA v. Williams (07-1216). . . .

The marathon, however, apparently is not over yet. Philip Morris, at an earlier stage in the case, reserved the right to challenge a state law that requires that 60 percent of a punitive verdict goes to the state of Oregon. The company’s argument against that is that Oregon has achieved all of the proceeds it is entitled to have under the global settlement of a group of states’ lawsuit against the industry.

Mrs. Williams’ lawyers, backed by the Oregon attorney general, have argued that the tobacco settlement only applied to that specific case, and thus would have no effect on the verdict in her case.

Philip Morris said Tuesday, after the new decision, that it was pursuing this issue in a proceeding now in state court.

Jump to full article »

PHILIP MORRIS USA v. WILLIAMS 

PER CURIAM. The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.

It is so ordered.

Jump to full article »

Big Tobacco Court Appeal Up In Smoke  

The Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out a cigarette maker's appeal of a $79.5 million award to a smoker's widow, likely signaling the end of a 10-year legal fight over the large payout.

In a one-sentence order, the court left in place a ruling by the Oregon Supreme Court in favor of Mayola Williams. The state court has repeatedly upheld a verdict against Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA in a fraud trial in 1999.

The judgment has grown to more than $145 million with interest.

The justices heard arguments in the case in December, but said Tuesday that they are not passing judgment on the legal issues that were presented. Instead, it is as if the court had declined to hear the case at all.

Jump to full article »

SCOTUS tosses out cigarette challenge 

Ending a marathon legal battle with a fizzle, the U.S. Supreme Court today tossed out a challenge from cigarette-maker Philip Morris to an Oregon jury's $80 million verdict in a lawsuit filed by a smoker's window.

Today's action sets no legal precedent. The court, after hearing the case in early December, decided there was no issue for the justices to resolve. This kind of disposition of a case happens a few times every term -- after agreeing to hear a case and delving into its specifics, the court decides it shouldn't have taken it after all. In the wonderfully passive language of the Supreme Court, the case is "dismissed as improvidently granted."

Jump to full article »

Big Tobacco loses another high court appeal in smoker lawsuit  

Tobacco giant Philip Morris lost another round Tuesday in a nearly $80 million punitive damages case that morphed into a increasingly complex, decade-long dispute between U.S. Supreme Court justices and their state counterparts in Oregon.

In a one-sentence opinion, the justices Tuesday threw out the latest appeal, essentially ending the tobacco company's appeals over the amount of the jury award, without ruling on the larger legal issues. Those issues deal with how the Oregon Supreme Court dealt with direction from the U.S. Supreme Court on how to handle the case.

Jump to full article »

• Supreme Court Upholds $79.5 Tobacco Award  

The Supreme Court today dealt a blow to Philip Morris, saying it would not decide the cigarette-maker's challenge of a punitive damages award brought by the widow of a longtime smoker that now is worth nearly $150 million.

The court's decision, announced in a one-sentence order, was a surprising and anticlimactic ending to a case that has bounded back and forth through the judicial system for nearly a decade. When an Oregon jury awarded Mayola Williams nearly $80 million following the death of her husband Jesse, it was the largest award of its kind.

Even though the justices have strongly implied that the award was too large and twice sent the case back west, the Oregon Supreme Court found reasons to leave it as it was. After the Oregon justices declined to change its decision for a second time, lawyers for Philip Morris petitioned the high court to "vindicate" its authority.

Instead, the court today said it should not have accepted the case for a third time, and in the language of the court, dismissed the case as "improvidently granted."

Because the case was argued in early December and the court issued its decision only today, it suggests the justices had trouble coming together on how to solve the legal issues raised. . . .

But the justices said that maybe the Oregon court had a point, after all.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who wrote the court's 2007 decision in the case, said he thought at first that Oregon was giving the court the "runaround." But after studying the case more closely, he said, "I'm not sure that I think that now."

Jump to full article »

Altria Appeal of Smoker Award Dismissed by Top Court (Update1)  

The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed Philip Morris USA Inc.’s appeal of a $79.5 million smoker award, declining to rule in a case that business groups had hoped would lead to tougher restrictions on punitive damages.

The high court today issued a one-sentence order dismissing the appeal by the Altria Group Inc. unit as “improvidently granted.” The justices often use that language when they discover procedural problems that prevent them from reaching the legal issue they planned to resolve. The court heard arguments in December.

The rebuff leaves intact an award that has grown to more than $150 million with interest and, if paid, would set a record in an individual smoker case. Today’s action comes after a dozen years of litigation between Philip Morris and Mayola Williams, whose husband died of lung cancer in 1997.

Altria fell 19 cents to $16.19 at 10:31 a.m. in composite trading on the New York Stock Exchange. The company will still have a chance to argue at the lower court level that it shouldn’t have to pay the 60 percent of the award that under Oregon law goes to the state.

Jump to full article »

Court ends Philip Morris appeal of $79.5M award 

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out a cigarette maker's appeal of a $79.5 million award to a smoker's widow, likely signaling the end of a 10-year legal fight over the large payout.

Jump to full article »

Today in History-March 30  

Ten years ago:

A jury in Portland, Ore., ordered Philip Morris to pay $81 million to the family of a man who died of lung cancer after smoking Marlboros for four decades. (The U.S. Supreme Court twice struck down the punitive damages part of the award, which was repeatedly upheld by Oregon courts; the high court agreed in June 2008 to review the judgment a third time.)

Jump to full article »

Tobacco giant postures as civil rights victim 

Mother Jones has an interesting take on last week's Supreme Court hearing in the decade-long battle in which cigarette-maker Philip Morris was ordered to pay the widow of a Portland janitor $79.5 million. Stephanie Mencimer, a reporter in Mother Jones' Washington, D.C., bureau offers an angle that was pretty much overlooked by other media. Here's the top of it:

Philip Morris, America's largest cigarette company, compared itself to the NAACP. . . .

The tobacco company has declared itself a civil rights victim, says Ray Thomas, one of Williams' lawyers. "That they have the gall to do that shows how brazen they are," he says.

No matter how you feel about the size of the $79.5 million judgment, you have to agree that "gall" is just about the right word for the tobacco giant's legal smoke screen.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Supreme Court's punitive damage clarity  

When the defendant is a much-reviled tobacco company, such an end run might not seem so outrageous. But suppose lower courts in the 1950s had succeeded in frustrating the implementation of the Supreme Court's Brown vs. Board of Education decision outlawing segregated public schools? The court forestalled such subversion of its mandate in a 1958 decision emphasizing that "the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution." . . .

The primary issue in this third round of litigation is whether Oregon's highest court circumvented last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling. But that obscures another important element in this case: the continuing refusal of state courts to take seriously a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions warning that punitive damage awards may not be "grossly excessive." . . .

The primary issue in this third round of litigation is whether Oregon's highest court circumvented last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling. But that obscures another important element in this case: the continuing refusal of state courts to take seriously a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions warning that punitive damage awards may not be "grossly excessive." That line of cases began in 1996 with a decision striking down a $4-million award to a physician who sued BMW for not disclosing that a "new" car he had purchased had been repainted. His actual damages were only $4,000. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court hasn't established a clear rule to determine when punitive damages become disproportionate to compensatory damages.

At Wednesday's argument, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that using the Oregon case to make a clear statement about the limits of punitive damages might be the best way to reassert the court's authority. We agree.

Jump to full article »