http://www.tobacco.org/newsfeed/category/lawsuits.rss Latest top tobacco news headlines en-us http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pacific_Legal_Foundation http://tobacco.org/news/298875.html The Pacific Legal Foundation is a Sacramento, California-based legal organization that was established March 5, 1973 [1] to support pro-business causes. In recent years, it has taken a lead in pursuing anti-affirmative action policies. It is the key right-wing public interest litigation firm in a network of similar organizations funded initially by Scaife Foundations money across the USA to support capitalism and oppose environmental and health activism and government regulation. The organization has been [2] partially funded by a range of corporations and conservative foundations. . . . PLF is listed as a "key third party ally" in a September 14, 1999 Philip Morris document.[4] In 1989, Philip Morris began funding the organization through its Mission Viejo (gated-community land-development company) subsidiary, mainly because the organisation was active in the property rights area and had won cases limiting the States' ability to expropriate or regulate private property. The Mission Viejo subsidiary was interested in fighting a no-growth initiative which had been blocking some of their development projects. At this stage Philip Morris only gave an annual grant of $5,000 each year, just to keep the organisation on side and available, but it may have also funded specific legal projects. By 1991 the PLF had a major budget crisis. It was in deficit to the tune of about $1 million, which was about a quarter of its $4 million annual requirements. Not long after, Roy Marden, the Philip Morris executive in charge of maintaining relations with the right-wing think tanks and advocacy institutes, joined the PLF board. Overnight the funding increased substantially to $10,000, and then $22,000 by 1993. Philip Morris also began to utilize the PLF to undertake hidden media and political activities on its behalf. For instance, it enlisted the organization (together with think-tanks like the Reason Foundation, Hoover Institute, Heritage Foundation and Claremont Institute) to write op-ed pieces that were planted in newspapers attacking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over its determination that Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) was a carcinogen and its attempt to regulate Indoor Air Quality (IAQ). (See page 4 of this planning document.[5]) At this time Philip Morris was also heavily funded two of PLF's unacknowledged offspring, the National Legal Center for the Public Interest and the Atlantic Legal Foundation. The Washington Legal Foundation was another of a similar kind favoured and funded ($200,000) by Philip Morris, but it was independent of the Scaife-funded, PLF-based network. [6] The PLF also intervened successful in Keller v. California State Bar, where it established a legal precedent that California lawyers could challenge the use of their dues to the state bar for political purposes. This was an successful attempt to block collective actions by the more liberal Californian lawyers who were involving themselves in such policy areas as class-actions and product liability. . . . In 1997-1998 the PLF joined forces with the $10 million funded (by Philip Morris) National Smokers Alliance, in a fierce and vindictive legal attack on Professor Stanton Arnold Glantz, a leader of California's main anti-smoking organization, Americans for Nonsmokers Rights[7] and attempted to brand him in the public mind as having something to hide ... a destroyer of legal document (a ruse the tobacco industry used itself on a massive scale). Glantz had received documents from the early tobacco industry whistleblowers, and he had established the first public-access Internet web site revealing how the industry operated. SourceWatch Fri, 19 Mar 2010 04:00:00 GMT http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202446486310&Fla_Court_Upholds__Million_Verdict_Against_Tobacco_Companies http://tobacco.org/news/298806.html A 9-year-old products liability case produced a major victory over tobacco companies Wednesday when the 3rd District Court of Appeal upheld a $24.8 million award to a man who died of cancer shortly after trial. The appellate panel offered no legal reasoning in its unsigned one-paragraph decision in John Lukacs' case against cigarette makers Philip Morris USA, Brown & Williamson and Liggett Group. The unanimous opinion by Judges Richard Suarez, Angel Cortiñas and Vance Salter is the first appellate ruling upholding a verdict since the Florida Supreme Court dismantled a smoker class action and opened the door to individual trials. Law.com Fri, 19 Mar 2010 04:00:00 GMT http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/tortsprof/2010/03/historians-in-tobacco-litigation.html http://tobacco.org/news/298769.html Jon Wiener of The Nation has an interesting cover story, "Big Tobacco & the Historians: A Tale of Seduction and Intimidation," in last week's issue. It's well worth a read, especially to see the view of the tort system from the academic historian's perspective. Some quick observations: * The piece addresses R.J. Reynolds's attempt to subpoena an unpublished work-in-progress by plaintiffs' expert Robert Proctor, describing the effort as "harassment-by-subpoena." The subpoena was ultimately rejected, according to the story, but the story doesn't suggest (at least to me) that the attempt to obtain the material was facially frivolous, dealing as it did with fairly unusual issues of Constitutional dimension. And of course, it seems fair to observe that Proctor's expert work is compensated, pretty well ($40,000 per year over a dozen years), so I expect he's not having to pay for his lawyers out of his academic salary. . . . As a general matter, the defense experts testify, per Wiener, that "'everybody knew' smoking causes cancer. So if you got cancer from smoking, it's your own fault." If there is a factual dispute about the level of knowledge of the risk of cancer at a particular time, that seems to me to be a reasonable situation to use expert testimony, and like a reasonable thing for a historian to do. To the extent that plaintiffs' witnesses rebut that testimony, again, that seems reasonable, and indeed, in at least some cases, that's what Proctor testifies about. . . . On the other hand, a mistrial was granted when Proctor started to testify about the history of racism in tobacco marketing, including highly offensive brands -- brands not, so far as I can tell, marketed by any extant company or defendant -- that included racial epithets in their names. The mistrial motion is termed a "tactic[] practiced by tobacco lawyers," again with evident disapproval. . . . As with many cases of academics venturing into the world of high-stakes litigation (see also Pathophilia's recent post about my Nebraska Law Review article), much of the story suggests some shock that the litigation world is what it is. And certainly it can be ugly, and perhaps ought to be changed. But that doesn't mean its ugliness is directed specifically at any particular expert, or solely at experts for one side or another. It does suggest that experts should be better educated early on about what is likely to happen in litigation. TortsProfs Blog wchilds@law.wnec.edu (William G. Childs Professor of Law Associate Dean for External Affairs Western New England School of Law ) Tue, 09 Mar 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62H42420100318 http://tobacco.org/news/298744.html U.S. health officials on Thursday sought to clamp down on the marketing of cigarettes to children and teenagers, issuing national limits on vending machine sales, free samples and taking other steps after a failed attempt more than a decade ago. Under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration rules, tobacco companies such as Reynolds American Inc and Altria Group Inc's Philip Morris could no longer use brand names to sponsor sporting and other events or to sell merchandise such as hats and T-shirts. The rules also limit advertising that could be seen by children to black-and-white formats, a contentious free-speech issue that has already been rejected by one court. Such restrictions aim "to help reduce the appeal of tobacco products to young people," the FDA said in a notice. . . . The new authority already faces a legal fight from some manufacturers, including Lorillard Inc, in a case that could eventually go before the Supreme Court. Companies argue the restrictions are unconstitutional, but a U.S. District Court judge in January backed most limits except for those regarding text-only advertisements. Reuters Thu, 18 Mar 2010 04:00:00 GMT http://libn.com/blog/2010/03/12/judge-snuffs-gasoline-retailers-lawsuit/ http://tobacco.org/news/298741.html A Nassau County Supreme Court Judge has thrown out a lawsuit against the state for boosting tobacco taxes paid by retailers. A group of gas station operators sued the state opposing an amended tax law to increase fees for stores selling tobacco from a $100 flat fee to a graduated scale ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 based on the gross sales of all products sold, rather than just tobacco items. The suit was led by the Long Island Gasoline Retailers Association, as well as four other trade associations representing about 10,000 retailers statewide. In September, the associations won a temporary restraining order allowing them not to have to pay the new fees until a judge could determine the impact of the changes to the law. But Justice Thomas Feinman ruled on Wednesday that the groups did not have standing in the case and they did not prove that their business would be adversely affected by the new fees. Long Island Business News Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inflco20100317136 http://tobacco.org/news/298714.html PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246, 1276-77 (Fla. 2006); Hendry v. Zelaya, 841 So. 2d 572, 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. Leagle Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:00:00 GMT http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/news.html?news_id=61229 http://tobacco.org/news/298706.html 9-year-old products liability case produced a major victory over tobacco companies Wednesday when the 3rd District Court of Appeal upheld a $24.8 million award to a man who died of cancer shortly after trial. 3rd DCA opinion The appellate panel offered no legal reasoning in its unsigned one-paragraph decision in John Lukacs’ case against cigarette makers Philip Morris USA, Brown & Williamson and Liggett Group. The unanimous opinion by Judges Richard Suarez, Angel Cortiñas and Vance Salter is the first appellate ruling upholding a verdict since the Florida Supreme Court dismantled a smoker class action and opened the door to individual trials. . . . The 3rd DCA decision cited the Supreme Court ruling, which allowed smokers to pursue individual lawsuits and offer the original jury’s findings as fact. New juries are advised to accept that smoking causes cancer and other illnesses, cigarettes are addictive and tobacco companies defrauded consumers by misleading them. “It sends a clear message that Engle is the guiding light in Florida tobacco litigation,” Rogow said. floridabiz.com FL_Marketing@alm.com (Jose Pagliery ) Thu, 18 Mar 2010 04:00:00 GMT http://www.theprovince.com/health/women file lawsuit over Pfizer quit smoking drug/2672831/story.html http://tobacco.org/news/298660.html Three B.C. women are suing pharmaceutical giant Pfizer over a lucrative drug that is designed to help people quit smoking but which, the plaintiffs claim, causes suicidal tendencies as an unintended byproduct. In a writ filed last month in B.C. Supreme Court, the plaintiffs claim Pfizer Inc. and its Canadian subsidiary put profits from Champix ahead of public safety, ignoring research that showed the drug was dangerous to some people and dragging its feet in warning B.C. doctors who prescribe it. Vancouver lawyer David Klein is seeking to have the lawsuit certified as a class action. "It's a scary drug," Klein said Thursday. Vancouver Province you@canada.com (Andy Ivens, Vancouver Province) Canada Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Time%20for%20change/542 http://tobacco.org/news/298658.html Paying expert witnesses huge sums of money to testify in one's behalf makes a mockery of the idea of justice. It entices them to shade the truth or outright lie in favor of their masters, thereby distorting our system of justice. . . . But by the late 1990s it gradually became no longer possible for the tobacco industry to maintain that stance - perhaps largely due to the efforts of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner David Kessler to bring cigarettes under FDA purview. So the tobacco industry switched to a different argument - an argument that was virtually the opposite of their previous claim of no proof that cigarettes are harmful. They began claiming that everyone always knew that cigarettes were harmful. Thus, they had their expert historians: re-narrate the past, creating an account for judges and juries that makes it appear that "everyone has always known" that cigarettes are harmful, meaning that smokers have only themselves to blame for their illnesses. . . . In other words, they now claim that during all those decades that they were aggressively arguing that there is no proof that cigarettes cause illness, nevertheless "everyone knew" that they do. Harassment of hostile witnesses Therefore, the tobacco industry must distort history in order to support their claims. A recent article in The Nation by Jon Wiener, titled "Big Tobacco & the Historians - A Tale of Seduction and Intimidation", notes that there are only three historians that have testified against the tobacco industry in the past fifteen years, whereas forty have testified in their favor during that time. How were they able to limit those testifying against them to three? Stanford Professor Robert Proctor is currently one of the two historians who testifies against tobacco companies. . . . But when one party in a legal case has so much wealth and power that it is able to intimidate witnesses from testifying for the other side, and pay huge sums of money to encourage its own witnesses to prostitute themselves, justice cannot be served. That is not "equal protection of the laws". Furthermore, the idea of paying expert witnesses huge sums of money to testify in one's behalf makes a mockery of the idea of justice. If that doesn't constitute a conflict of interest then the phrase "conflict of interest" has no meaning. Paying people a reasonable sum of money for their time and effort is one thing. Paying them so much that are sorely tempted to perjure and prostitute themselves is entirely something else. Unfortunately, wherever and whenever that kind of thing is legal, witnesses will tend to shade the truth or outright lie in favor of their masters, and justice will not be served. There are few better examples of this than the way that the tobacco industry has manipulated our legal system in pursuit of its own selfish interests for the past several decades. Democratic Underground Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:00:00 GMT http://newsblog.projo.com/2010/03/by-john-e-mulligan-journal.html http://tobacco.org/news/298657.html John J. "Jack" McConnell Jr., a successful Providence lawyer who worked on the landmark lawsuit that yielded a $264-billion settlement with the tobacco industry, has been nominated to the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island. President Obama announced the nomination 11 months after Rhode Island's Democratic senators, Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse, recommended McConnell for what they depicted as his intellect, legal ability, temperament, and integrity, as well as a solid middle-class background. Providence Journal-Bulletin Wed, 10 Mar 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.searcylaw.com/blog/uninformed-friends-of-big-tobacco/ http://tobacco.org/news/298656.html A Palm Beach Post reporter wrote in yesterday's paper something about which he clearly knows little or nothing. The title was: "What part of 'hazardous' don't smokers get?" This is a story criticizing smokers and casting judgment on those smokers who have sued Big Tobacco; the "Engle" plaintiffs. It seems evident to me this reporter clearly spent no time researching and brought an entire collection of "baggage" into his article. The only tangible piece of information the reporter provides is that his parents smoked and "…they were lifelong slaves to -- and, ultimately, victims of -- the habit." This statement certainly demonstrates facts, but completely misses the mark on any shred of insight. The reporter apologizes for knocking "a possibly dying woman as she struggles for her next breath", but he clearly knows nothing about the case, trial, or facts of the lawsuit filed by Cindy Naugle. This reporter also must have no respect for the intelligence of jurors who after hearing weeks of evidence, must have been outraged by the conduct of Big Tobacco, causing them to render a $300 million verdict. All of this demonstrates at least one central issue. Before "dashing off" this article, want of any facts, the reporter could not have done even a modicum of research. Before criticizing an entire class of people, perhaps he should try researching and reading, just a little. . . . For those who who want to know facts about Big Tobacco and not hyperbole, I recommend the following sites: Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley PA / Attorneys at Law Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:00:00 GMT http://www.wvrecord.com/news/225147-order-will-impact-asbestos-verdicts http://tobacco.org/news/298651.html An order filed Wednesday will ensure asbestos plaintiffs don't get paid twice for the same alleged injuries. Circuit Judge Ronald Wilson's order essentially ensures that defendants in asbestos cases receive proper credit when plaintiffs are paid by trusts of bankrupt defendants. In asbestos cases that go to verdict, money paid by such trusts would reduce the amount of the money paid out. The order is meant to make the process of dealing with trusts of bankrupt asbestos defendants more open and to make it easier for all parties involved to see what plaintiffs in such cases told the trusts. . . . Cohn also referenced the infamous Kananian vs. Lorillard Tobacco Company case in Ohio. He has called the case "the poster-child for abuses flowing from the opaque nature of the trust claiming process." In that case, Harry Kananian claimed in he developed mesothelioma solely from smoking Lorillard's asbestos-filtered cigarettes. But he and his attorneys simultaneously filed claims with numerous asbestos trusts alleging that their products caused the disease. Despite Kananian's attorneys' attempts to hide this information, Lorillard eventually learned that these lawyers had obtained hundreds of thousands of dollars by submitting contradictory -- even bogus -- trust claims, leading the judge to revoke counsel's pro hac vice privileges. "Judge Wilson's order is good, but it still potentially allows for the gaming of the system by deferring the submissions," Cohn said of Wednesday's West Virginia order. "The problem, especially in joint and several jurisdiction, there are fewer and fewer solvent defendants. The share they might end up paying is bigger and bigger. These defendants are looking down the barrel of a gun in joint and several jurisdictions." . . . West Virginia Record chris@wvrecord.com ( Chris Dickerson -Statehouse Bureau) Wed, 03 Mar 2010 05:00:00 GMT http://www.mountvernonnews.com/local/10/03/17/how-will-ruling-affect-smoking-ban http://tobacco.org/news/298632.html Franklin County Common Pleas Judge David Cain recently ruled the state of Ohio exceeded its authority to fine business owners for violations of the state's no smoking laws. In his ruling, Cain said that aside from following procedures outlined by the state -- posting no smoking signs, removing ashtrays and telling customers not to smoke -- there is little a business owner can do to enforce the Ohio Smoke Free Workplace Act. Mount Vernon News Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:00:00 GMT http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/226147-ohio-sc-will-rule-on-tobacco-funds-dispute http://tobacco.org/news/298605.html The Ohio Supreme Court will decide if the state had the authority to eliminate tobacco cessation and prevention programs that were funded by the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement. Legacy, a national public health foundation created by the MSA, is challenging the decision made by the Ohio Legislature that abolished both the Ohio Tobacco Prevention Foundation and its endowment. A state court of appeals ruled in December for the state, reversing a lower court decision. "(Thursday's) decision is an extremely important step forward," Cheryl G. Healton, president and CEO of Legacy, said. Legal NewsLine john@legalnewsline.com (JOHN O'BRIEN) Mon, 15 Mar 2010 04:00:00 GMT http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2492756 http://tobacco.org/news/298575.html Hundreds of inmates at Canada's biggest prison, calling themselves "scum of the earth," have failed in a strange bid to join a court battle over smoking. The federal court of appeal will hear an appeal this morning by the Correctional Service of Canada. It is seeking to overturn another court decision of last October that tossed out the prison service's smoking ban. Corrections Canada banned smoking by convicts inside buildings and on the property of the country's 58 penitentiaries in May 2008. The nearly 600 convicts at Warkworth Institution, a medium-security prison 100 kilometres west of Kingston near Campbellford, wanted to join the court fight. They filed more than 130 pages of unusual material with the court, invoking the Bible and the Magna Carta, and citing doc-u m e nt s they obtained from Buckingham Palace. . . . The appeal is scheduled for 9:30 this morning. It involves Corrections Canada and 19 inmates imprisoned in Quebec who won the smoking ban reversal last year. The group includes notorious mobsters, gang members and killers. They complained that the total ban led to anxiety, weight gain and ill-health. The decision overturning the ban was suspended until the appeal was heard. Kingston Whig-Standard rtripp@thewhig.com (Posted By ROB TRIPP, THE WHIG-STANDARD) Canada Tue, 16 Mar 2010 04:00:00 GMT