<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Tobacco Articles: state OR</title>
<link>http://www.tobacco.org/newsfeed/state/OR.rss</link>
<description>Latest top tobacco news headlines</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<item>
<title>Brief for the Petitioner filed August 13, 2008 (PDF)</title>
<link>http://www.altria.com/download/pdf/williams_brief_08132008.pdf</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/272101.html</guid>
<description>Philip Morris proposed a jury instruction 
that correctly stated the federal standard, and also 
made clear at the charge conference its position on 
the federal issue. That was sufficient to invoke its 
constitutional right. The Oregon Supreme Court&#8217;s 
novel application of a requirement that the proposed 
instruction be &#8220;correct in all respects&#8221;&#8212;an application 
completely divorced from the rule&#8217;s purpose&#8212; 
reflects the type of &#8220;pointless severity&#8221; that this 
Court has held inadequate to bar federal claims. . . . 

The trial court considered each paragraph 
of Requested Instruction 34 independently, and it rejected 
the paragraph on harms to non-parties on the 
merits because it believed, erroneously, that the instruction 
was not required by federal law. Accordingly, 
the outcome would have been exactly the same 
had Philip Morris submitted that paragraph by itself 
on a separate page. State courts cannot require litigants 
to engage in &#8220;arid ritual[s] of meaningless 
form&#8221; in order to preserve their federal claims.

Beyond this, the requirement imposed below is 
the antithesis of the &#8220;firmly established and regularly 
followed state practice&#8221; that can bar a federal 
claim.  . . .

III. As this Court recognized, Philip Morris 
properly requested protection from the risk of punishment 
for harms to non-parties. And the trial 
court infringed Philip Morris&#8217;s federal constitutional 
rights by rejecting that request. The only adequate 
remedy for this constitutional violation is a new trial.

A remittitur of the punitive award to the maximum 
amount permissible under the Constitution cannot 
cure the error, because a properly instructed jury 
might well have awarded less than the constitutional 
maximum. The Oregon courts should now be directed 
to award Philip Morris a new trial.
</description>
<source url="http://www.altria.com/">Altria Group, Inc.</source>
<pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Select PM USA Litigation - Active Cases - Williams Case</title>
<link>http://www.altria.com/media/03_06_03_04_06_williams.asp</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/272094.html</guid>
<description>
In January 2008, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Oregon Court of Appeals' June 2004 decision, which in turn, upheld the jury's compensatory damage award and reinstated the jury's award of $79.5 million in punitive damages. In March 2008, PM USA filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which was granted in June 2008. Briefing before the United States Supreme Court is ongoing.</description>
<source url="http://www.altria.com/">Altria Group, Inc.</source>
<pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Ahead at Supreme Court: big cases, no blockbusters: Its new term, which starts Monday, includes cases on detainees and TV language.</title>
<link>http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1003/p02s01-usju.html</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/271980.html</guid>
<description>One case that may prove particularly revealing involves the murky area of punitive damages. . . .

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the Oregon jury in her case had impermissibly held tobacco company Philip Morris responsible for harms to a wider group of smokers beyond just the plaintiff's late husband. The case was sent back to the Oregon Supreme Court to reduce the amount of the award to a level commensurate with harm to a single smoker. Instead, the Oregon Supreme Court once again upheld the $79.5 million award, basing its decision this time on a state law provision never considered by the US Supreme Court.

&quot;The Roberts court has twice vacated a $79.5 million punitive damages award only to have the Oregon Supreme Court twice thumb its nose at the Supreme Court and defiantly reinstate that award,&quot; says Robin Conrad of the National Chamber Litigation 

One case that may prove particularly revealing involves the murky area of punitive damages. The high court has agreed for the third time to examine an Oregon jury's award of $79.5 million to the widow of a lifelong smoker.
Center. &quot;Despite the Supreme Court's effort at curbing outrageous jury awards, rogue state courts like Oregon's supreme court continue to look for new loopholes.&quot;

Thus, the stage is set for what may become a fiery judicial showdown between the nation's highest court and Oregon's highest court. Ultimately the case may reveal more about how the Supreme Court views its relationship to state court judges than how the excessive punitive damages issue should be resolved, analysts say. </description>
<source url="http://www.csmonitor.com">Christian Science Monitor</source>
<pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2008 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Cases to Watch at the Supreme Court</title>
<link>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/us/05scotus-box.html?_r=1&amp;ref=washington&amp;oref=slogin</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/271973.html</guid>
<description>Among the biggest cases so far:

_Efforts by drug makers and tobacco companies to limit consumer lawsuits under state law.
 . . .


_A third try at resolving a punitive damages award to a smoker's widow. .  . .

In the tobacco case, Altria Group Inc. is fighting state suits over allegedly deceptive advertising of &quot;light&quot; and &quot;low-tar&quot; cigarettes.

By June, Supreme Court terms often look very different than they do at their start.

The court could rule on the constitutionality of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act and the president's authority to seize and detain people in the United States as enemy combatants, indefinitely and without facing criminal charges.

Perhaps the biggest news that could emerge from the court _ other than deciding the outcome of the presidential election _ would be the announcement of a retirement.</description>
<source url="http://www.tobacco.org/media.php?mode=display&amp;media_id=1004">New York Times</source>
<pubDate>Sat, 04 Oct 2008 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Cases Pending:</title>
<link>http://www.cjlf.org/cases/pending.htm</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/271850.html</guid>
<description>
Philip Morris v. Williams (Filed: 8/20/08)

CJLF filed a brief in this U.S. Supreme Court smoking liability case because it turns on a procedural issue that also arises in federal court review of state criminal convictions. The Oregon Supreme Court held that Philip Morris had lost its federal claim of excessive damages by not using the procedure required by state law to preserve the claim. Philip Morris says the state court ruling was a departure from the previous understanding of the rule and therefore cannot be used to block its federal claim. CJLF's brief supports neither party on the merits of the case but asks the high court to establish a simple, clear standard in this confused area of law. </description>
<source url="http://www.cjlf.org/">Criminal Justice Legal Foundation  </source>
<pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Philip Morris U.S.A. v. Williams, (No. 07-1216), U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary &amp; Oral Argument</title>
<link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_07_1216/</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/271845.html</guid>
<description>
Facts of the Case

Mayola Williams sued the tobacco giant, Philip Morris, in Oregon state court following her husband's death from lung cancer in 1997. Ms. Williams claimed that her husband had been convinced by Philip Morris' advertisements and representations that smoking did not pose any significant health risks and had refused to quit smoking despite his family's pleas.</description>
<source url="http://www.oyez.org/">Oyez Project</source>
<pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Philip Morris USA v. Williams </title>
<link>http://www.onthedocket.org/cases/2008/philip-morris-usa-v-williams</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/271843.html</guid>
<description>Docket Number

07-1216

Date Granted

06/09/2008

Oral Argument

Wed, 12/03/2008. . . .

The Supreme Court has agreed to review a $79.5 million punitive damages judgment against Philip Morris for the third time.

Jesse Williams was a devoted husband and father who worked as a school custodian in Portland, Ore. He began smoking Marlboro cigarettes in his early twenties. Over the next 47 years, he developed a three pack-a-day habit, ignoring the large amounts of evidence compiled in that time that documented tobacco's hazardous health effects.

The undeniable proof for Williams, unfortunately, came in the form of an inoperable lung cancer diagnosis. Six months later, he was dead. He was 67.
</description>
<source url="http://www.onthedocket.org/">On the Docket </source>
<author>j-doppelt@northwestern.edu</author>
<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>For the Session Beginning December 1, 2008 : OCTOBER TERM 2008</title>
<link>http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalDecember2008.pdf</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/271617.html</guid>
<description>Wednesday, December 3


07-1216 PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. V. WILLIAMS
</description>
<source url="http://supremecourtus.gov/">Supreme Court of the United States</source>
<pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>EDITORIAL: Tobacco dead end</title>
<link>http://www.democratherald.com/articles/2008/09/20/news/opinion/3edi02_tobacco.txt</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/271403.html</guid>
<description>
Would it be in the state's best interest to encourage more people to smoke tobacco?  . . . 

Officials note that raising taxes has a double benefit: Not just more revenue but also less smoking. In that spirit, the governor has said he'll again propose a higher cigarette tax next legislative session. . . .


Eventually, this approach would lead to the handful of remaining smokers being expected to cough up millions in taxes by themselves. So it can't work in the long run. But already, the shortfall in tobacco revenue shows that the policy has run into a dead end. (hh)</description>
<source url="http://www.democratherald.com/">Albany  Democrat-Herald</source>
<pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2008 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Subsidized housing residents in smoking dispute</title>
<link>http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080829/NEWS/808290329</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/270795.html</guid>
<description>
At first glance, the Star Thistle Apartments in Ashland look clean and well maintained. . . .

Hanson and other residents of the apartment complex met this week to discuss the smoking problem with a representative of the property manager, Grants Pass- based Options for Southern Oregon Inc., a private nonprofit. . . . 


Smoking has long been a problem for Options, which has had to scrape the walls of some apartments after chain smokers moved out, said Miller.

Another Star Thistle resident, Steve Weiner, said smoke comes through the ventilation system into his apartment.

Most of the residents in the apartment complex don't smoke inside the buildings, but three of the residents are still allowed to smoke because they were living there before the rules took effect about four years ago. . . .



Kim Miller, executive director for Options, said the issue of smoking in these government subsidized units is not limited to Star Thistle.

&quot;We're very sympathetic and doing what we can,&quot; he said.

Options provides 77 units of affordable housing in Jackson and Josephine counties. The organization offers counseling, case management, education support, work support and crisis resolution, and it also has a gambling addiction center. It has a budget of $12 million annually, and serves about 4,800 people a year.

Even though other residents are supposed to smoke away from the building, planters filled with cigarette butts sat on a table under a window that was open to the lobby Thursday.
</description>
<source url="http://www.mailtribune.com/">Medford  Mail-Tribune</source>
<author>dmann@mailtribune.com (Damian Mann Mail Tribune)</author>
<pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Wyden pushes for national ban on novelty lighters</title>
<link>http://www.tdn.com/articles/2008/08/01/breaking_news/doc489328bd82568346957821.txt</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/270074.html</guid>
<description>Oregon Democratic Senator Ron Wyden wants to see a national ban on novelty cigarette lighters.

Some such lighters look like animals, trucks and other toys that could appeal to children.

Wyden says he's upset about the role the lighters have played in child-started fires, including at least one deadly blaze last year in Oregon.</description>
<source url="http://www.tdn.com/">Longview  Daily News</source>
<pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Expert will teach, not preach about tobacco</title>
<link>http://www.oregonlive.com/metrowest/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/metro_west_news/1217636704161060.xml&amp;coll=7</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/269689.html</guid>
<description>Washington County's message about tobacco use won't be preachy.

Amanda Garcia-Snell, new coordinator for the county's Tobacco Prevention and Education Program, said she'd rather equip people with information.

&quot;We're not just telling people 'smoking's bad,' but 'smoking's bad and here's how you can quit,' &quot; Garcia-Snell says.

Garcia-Snell, who began working for the county in June, will be a liaison to schools, hospitals, property-management companies and other groups. She says she'd like to focus on information about second-hand smoke and exposure along with helping develop smoke-free policies.</description>
<source url="http://www.oregonian.com">The Oregonian</source>
<author>melissanavas@news.oregonian.com (MELISSA NAVAS The Oregonian Staff )</author>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Hospital bans outdoor smoking</title>
<link>http://www.bandonwesternworld.com/articles/2008/07/25/news/doc4887721567294856655514.txt</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/269494.html</guid>
<description>
Bandon's Southern Coos Hospital and Health Center is paving the way as a community leader by responding to Oregon's no-smoking legislation with a new policy of its own. The facility became a tobacco-free campus on July 1.

The vision of hospital CEO Jim Wathen, a 39-year smoker who quit his habit about 16 months ago, the program has extended the state's ban against smoking inside buildings to the entire hospital property.

Wathen believes that, as a community leader in a small city, the hospital has a level of responsibility for promoting healthy lifestyles.</description>
<source url="http://www.bandonwesternworld.com/">Bandon  Western World </source>
<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Survey: Most Ore. businesses aware of smokefree workplace laws</title>
<link>http://kdrv.com/news/local/28981</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/269479.html</guid>
<description>As the state of Oregon approaches the expansion of its Smokefree Workplace Law on January 1st, 2009, a new survey finds that two-thirds of bars and bar sections of restaurants are already smokefree.
 
The survey, by Oregon's Tobacco Prevention and Education Program, found that 91 percent of all places that allow smoking are aware of the upcoming law, and nine percent plan to voluntarily go smoke-free before the law even takes effect. 44 percent say they are already voluntarily smokefree. Another 40 percent of establishments with liquor licenses are already smokefree by law because they allow minors at all times.
</description>
<source url="http://www.kdrv.com/">KDRV ABC 12 </source>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Letter: Because it's the law</title>
<link>http://www.wallowacountychieftain.info/main.asp?SectionID=6&amp;SubSectionID=6&amp;ArticleID=16514&amp;TM=6799.787</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/269478.html</guid>
<description>as of Jan. 1, 2009, there will be NO SMOKING &quot;within 10 feet of parts of public places or places of employment.This means &quot;within 10 feet of any entrances, exits, windows that open and ventilation intakes that serve an enclosed area.&quot;

This language is from Senate Bill 571, passed during the 74th Oregon Legislative Assembly-2007 Regular Session. Public hearings were held, and after the final version of the Oregon Administrative Rules are completed, these changes will become law on Jan. 1, 2009. With this new law there may be fines associated with non-compliance issues.

The Wallowa County Health Department has been awarded a grant, from the Oregon TPEP (Tobacco Prevention and Education Program) at the Oregon Department of Human Services.

The objective of the grant is to provide assistance with compliance issues, direction and answer any questions from employers, public facilities, schools and hospitals to help establish policies, upgrades polices and/or redefine policies.

I am the Tobacco Prevention and Education coordinator for Wallowa County, and I may be reached at the Wallowa County Health Department </description>
<source url="http://www.wallowacountychieftain.info/">Wallowa County  Chieftain</source>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>