637:
nicotine addiction as a marketing strategy for company profit. Edell also claimed that
Cipollone's tobacco use stemmed from her nicotine addiction, which was encouraged by the advertising of Liggett and Myers, Philip Morris, and Lorillard by the use of both health claims and advertising. Edell made sure that Cipollone was portrayed as a woman who was disparaged by her powerful addiction to the tobacco industry's product; expert testimony showed that she even displayed withdrawal symptoms, sometimes digging through “the trash for butts when she ran out of cigarettes”. Edell was heavily committed to the case. He was seen working seven days a week and spending his every waking minute on the case. He sacrificed time with both his wife and children to ensure his arguments were strong. After presenting his case that the tobacco industry's advertising of cigarettes and knowledge of risk related to Cipollone's claims, the tobacco companies' defense moved for dismissal. The motion was denied. They were going to have to answer to Edell's claims.
847:
correlation between smoking cigarettes and the diseases that are linked to them. Many plaintiffs were out financed by big tobacco companies as well, with companies having what seemed to be unlimited pools of financial resources while plaintiffs struggled with countless court fees. With
Cipollone v Liggett Inc, finances were not a major problem for Edell and his team. They were the first to introduce the concept of a conspiracy by tobacco companies to keep the public misinformed on the dangers of smoking and that there was a "safer cigarette" hidden in the shadows. After the case, tobacco companies viewed the ruling as a victory in their favor. However, this proclamation did not stop a wave of hundreds of lawsuits to follow in liability after Cipollone v Liggett Inc. Cipollone v Liggett Group Inc is viewed by some commentators as a monumental achievement in the anti-tobacco crusade.
633:
carcinogenic. Before the trial could begin however, the battle over the use of these documents was carried out. The tobacco companies unsuccessfully struggled to suppress the evidence papers obtained by Edell on the grounds that it would "divulge trade secrets"; the trial court judge, Sarokin, ruled that the people and the court had the
Constitutional right to know what the companies know and granted the use of the papers. The tobacco companies still made an effort to thwart the efforts of Edell to use the papers. They not only appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the ruling, but also the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case. It was established that the evidence would be used in trial.
692:
86:
539:. In 1981, doctors found a carcinomatous spot on her right lung and performed a partial lung resection. After the multitudes of consultations and operations so far in her life, Rose still continued to smoke, “though often now in secret", claimed Rose from an unknown source. In 1982, the cancer had spread to her lower and middle right lung, and Cipollone had surgery to remove the entire lung as well as a large adrenal mass in 1983. Rose Cipollone died on October 24, 1984, after her lung cancer had spread and become inoperable.
800:
leaders watched, some supporters of big tobacco and others some of its strongest critics. A new conversation in the public forum had been opened with
Cipollone v Liggett Group Inc, with the public becoming more informed on the dangers of smoking. However, this can only be said for a small few, as others did know the dangers before the case and the warning of Surgeon General Terry. The smoking population stayed constant through the trial, with no substantial change occurring during the course of the trials.
641:
even if the cigarettes had caused her death, it was in no way the responsibility of the industry. As research and the industry documents were used in trial, Edell failed to show any explicit proof that lung cancer is linked directly to smoking. Furthermore, expert testimony revealed that the type of lung cancer affecting
Cipollone was not associated with smoking. Cipollone's constant switching between “healthier” brands also showed her acknowledgment of the dangers of smoking, argued by the defense.
809:
792:
727:
412:
24:
517:—up to a pack and a half a pack per day. It wasn't until she was pregnant and at her husband Antonio Cipollone's request that she attempted to quit smoking. Though she cut down on her regular smoking of a pack and a half per day, she still secretly smoked during her pregnancy. In 1955, Rose switched to
612:, ruled in favor of Cipollone, stating that while state legislatures are prohibited from requiring specific warning labels and regulation of them, Edell's tactic of calling into question the inadequacy of the ones already present under the government was acceptable. The ruling was later overturned on
437:
The relationship that the
American people has had with tobacco companies can be said to be tumultuous and is documented. Tobacco has always been a staple economic resource in the fabric of the American economy, even in trade amongst Native American tribes. Tobacco crops were instrumental in the early
496:
By the 1970s, the cultural tide on smoking had once again changed. With medical evidence more advanced than in previous decades, the association between smoking and diseases like cancer was becoming ever more prevalent, leaving tobacco companies less options to hide from this truth. Furthermore, the
846:
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. was one of the costliest liability lawsuits spanning the course of five years. Tobacco companies before the case were succeeding in the court room—no plaintiffs had ever been like Edell in previous cases. Many earlier plaintiffs were not able to make the scientific
799:
The case caught the attention of many: Congress, Wall Street, and legal communities across the country. Legal communities, those opposed to and supportive of tobacco companies, analyzed the victor in the trials and what it entailed for future liability suits against tobacco companies. Congressional
640:
The tobacco industry argued that Rose
Cipollone was fully aware of the risks of smoking both before and during her cigarette use. "She was an independent woman, making an independent decision to continue smoking, and she was in control, not the nicotine" claimed the tobacco industries. Furthermore,
481:
With the battle between tobacco companies and public health advocates ensuing, litigation against tobacco companies became the next step. From the 1950s on, there began to be litigation filed against tobacco companies to be liable for injuries and/or consequences from smoking cigarettes. Cases such
762:
The majority ruling by the
Supreme Court limited the potential litigants in lawsuits against tobacco industries to only smokers who developed diseases prior to 1969. The opinion did not exclude fraud and conspiracy or express warranty, as section 5b of the 1969 Act does not explicitly define this;
501:
in 1964 served as a final piece needed to close the gap between the two concepts. In addition to liability laws being changed from the time of the 1950s, plaintiffs no longer had to prove negligence on the part of the company with regards to their product but expose a defect. With the restrictions
492:
consisted of patients blaming cigarettes for their current health conditions and wanting tobacco companies to be held liable. Many of these cases were victories for tobacco companies, often being that litigants in the beginning of this new era of lawsuits against tobacco were not able to prove the
722:
Five days after the appellate ruling, Antonio
Cipollone died, Rose Cipollone's son continued on with the case after her husband's death. Both the plaintiff and the defense in this case were looking for a concrete doctrine regarding the ability to litigate regarding preemption, state regulation of
396:
did not preclude lawsuits by smokers against tobacco companies on the basis of several claims. The case examined whether tobacco companies could be liable for not warning the consumer "adequately" of the dangers of cigarettes as well as ultimately held the stance that smoking was in fact a free
819:
for a new trial. The retrial never occurred; the $ 400,000 verdict for
Cipollone from the original trial was far eclipsed by the exorbitant costs and length of the lawsuit. Since the case was filed, almost half the ten years was spent on post-trial matters. In 1988, Phillip Morris was quoted as
636:
Alongside the tobacco industry documents, Edell argued that the powerful advertising for the brands Cipollone smoked was an unscrupulous strategy utilized by the tobacco industry to not only overshadow the warning labels mandated by the federal government, but also to promote cigarette use and
632:
Edell strengthened his case with his access to 300,000 pages of internal documents of the tobacco companies. These documents included compelling and damaging evidence that the tobacco companies had proof, backed by research dating back to the 1940s, that nicotine was addictive and potentially
662:
The jury deliberated for 6 days, and reached the verdict on June 3, 1988—considering the conspiracy claims and the lack of expression in warranty and warning argued by Edell. The jury was composed of 3 non-smokers, 2 former smokers, and 1 smoker. The group of 6 had concluded that:
238:
In this divided ruling, the Court found that a 1966 federal cigarette labeling law did not preempt state law damages actions; but later amendments to the act in 1969 did preclude not just "failure to warn" claims, but also on the broader duty "to inform consumers of known risks."
714:
Allowed Edell to file suit on the basis of design and advertising. He was able to claim that prior to the 1966 Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertisement Act, tobacco companies did not inform the average unaware smoker on the dangers of smoking while they in fact knew this
530:
under the recommendation of her physician. Her options at this point were to either quit smoking or switch to this brand of cigarette with its advertised plastic filter inserts. Rose chose the latter option, and continued to smoke with the suggested brand of her physician.
628:
In the retrial, Edell was not allowed to enter evidence claiming that Liggett & Myers had worked on the creation of a safer cigarette. He also was not allowed to bring evidence regarding the tobacco industry's “duty to warn” of the dangers of cigarette smoking.
438:
economic development of the United States in colonial times. Following this period was a rise in the cigarette. Tobacco and smoking began to be engraved in the culture and lifestyle of the American public, associated with things such as "sexy, cool, masculine".
542:
It wasn't until the year before Rose Cipollone's death that she met Marc Edell. Recommended by her chest surgeon, Marc Edell was skilled in the art of going after companies and their negligence to protect consumer health. Edell had previously represented the
650:
441:
The popularity of tobacco was soon replaced with skepticism and many wanting to know the health risks of smoking. Research and analysis followed in order to understand these risks, with shocking conclusions and connections to diseases( coronary disease,
850:
However, many say that even with the surge in liability lawsuits against tobacco companies, it will be hard for any more progress to ensue. The same problems are still standing in the way of future plaintiffs who decide to go after big tobacco:
534:
While Rose was trying to decide which brand of cigarettes was right for her, she simultaneously was suffering the health effects of smoking. In the mid-1960s, Rose began to develop a smokers’ cough, as well as problems such as chest pain and
174:
Interpretation of previous federal law preemption decision as barring plaintiff's failure to warn, fraudulent misrepresentation, express warranty, and conspiracy to defraud claims affirmed. Reversal on other issues require a remand for a new
687:
Edell was pleased that they had received some monetary reward and saw it as a victory. However, he comments on his hope that the courts would've gone further with their condemnation of big tobacco in an interview sometime after the ruling.
682:
The claim regarding the tobacco industry's withholding of a production of a safer cigarette was dismissed on the grounds that it involved speculation to whether Cipollone would have in fact chosen to smoke the safer option if given the
368:
525:
brand cigarettes, citing conditions attributed to her health as her reasoning. Parliaments were advertised to have a recessed filter and lower tar content than that of other competitive cigarette brands. Finally, Rose switched to
620:. However, the appellate court did allow the case to be retried in district court on the condition that no claims regarding advertisement and promotion could be made. Edell accepted that condition and prepared for retrial.
547:
Companies in their defense in regard to the health-related claims brought against them. From that case, Edell became familiar with “pulmonary pathology and risks of smoking” and became interested in litigation against the
1388:
743:
in regard to state law regulating the tobacco industry and whether common law damages constitute a requirement based on smoking and health based on state law in regard to advertisements and promotion. The
670:
All claims for failure to warn were dropped against Philip Morris and Lorillard, since Cipollone began smoking their cigarettes after the 1966 federally mandated warning labels appeared on the packages
824:
and seven other tobacco litigation cases had "incurred approximately $ 1.2 million in out-of-pocket expenses ... The firms have also spent well over $ 5 million in lawyer and paralegal time".
820:
saying: "Almost 200 lawsuits have been brought in the last five and a half years and the cigarette manufacturers have not ... paid a penny to settle one." As of 1992, the law firms handling
577:
Edell planned to argue a case based on the cause of Cipollone's death: nicotine from her cigarettes. He gathered facts to bring a series of claims to the court that argued the following:
521:
brand of cigarettes on the basis that their “pure white Miracle Tip” filter appeared to be a healthier alternative compared to Chesterfield Cigarettes. In 1968, Rose switched to smoking
783:
The concurring opinion of the court found that no damage claims were preempted rather than not discussed. The dissenting justices found that all state laws were preempted by the act.
827:
Rose Cipollone's son filed for a voluntary withdrawal of the lawsuit on November 4, 1992. Six other tobacco liability cases were withdrawn the same month as well. The firm handling
718:
Edell could argue the case that the tobacco industry could be held liable on a live claim that the company made Cipollone unaware of the product's dangers outweighing the benefits.
1304:
921:
374:
373:
370:
369:
129:
375:
748:
of 1966, which excludes all manufacturers who label their packages with proper warnings from requirement or prohibition, led the majority of the court to the opinion that:
590:
The cigarette makers had breached express warranty by making health claims in their advertising and promotions, which fraudulently overshadowed the mandated health warnings
553:
186:
755:
Cases involving the neutralization of federal warnings in advertisements on the grounds that the Act preempted, or overrode, state laws were also invalid and prohibited
478:) that left many in shock. Public Health advocates urged for the banning of cigarette sales and the overall production of cigarettes in order to protect the public.
1393:
608:
of tobacco and therefore prevented state litigation, making the tobacco industry immune to suits. From there, they moved to dismiss the case. The trial judge,
372:
861:
If the argument of smoking being free choice is still intact, there will always be blame to put on the plaintiff and cannot solely rest on tobacco companies
617:
169:
1383:
1253:
Quinn, John F. (November 1, 1989). "Moral theory and defective tobacco advertising and warnings (the business ethics of Cipollone v. Liggett Group)".
711:
Set aside the $ 400,000 in damages on the grounds that there was no proof that Cipollone relied on the Liggett & Myers advertisements in question.
1403:
1398:
704:
After the District Court Ruling, the tobacco companies appealed to the Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit in hopes of reversing the verdict.
745:
691:
601:
593:
There was a conspiracy by tobacco companies to prevent other third party groups from releasing health information on the hazards of cigarettes
398:
1413:
992:
858:
The limitations placed by the Supreme Court on who can still litigate against tobacco companies ( those who developed diseases prior to 1969)
581:
Tobacco companies had failed to and were negligent in putting better designs of cigarettes on the market when they had the resources to do so
371:
147:¶ 13,199; 17 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 1087; 92 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5517; 92 Daily Journal DAR 8688; 6 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 589
1222:
1038:
241:
The 1969 amendments, however, did not preempt claims based on express warranty, intentional fraud and misrepresentation, or conspiracy.
393:
389:
90:
60:
42:
34:
483:
401:
to determine whether the warning labels on the cigarette products by law had to be less or more alarming than the warning issued.
243:
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed in part and affirmed in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
766:
The Supreme Court also stated that if the plaintiff, Edell and Cipollone's son in this case, could prove any of the following:
411:
1156:"Taking On Tobacco : Even After a Wave of Legal Setbacks, Marc Edell Wasn't About to Let Landmark Case Go Up in Smoke"
679:
The jury awarded $ 400,000 in damages to Mr. Antonio Cipollone, who had continued to fight the case after his wife's death.
498:
596:
Pain and suffering were alleged results of her illness and under the liability rules and law should be compensated for
191:
Defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict for the plaintiff and other post-trial motions denied.
673:
Only Liggett & Myers could be held liable, as Cipollone smoked their cigarettes before the 1966 warning labels
527:
488:
447:
423:'s reasoning enjoyed majority support, but the opinion eventually gained full majority support 16 years later in
111:
Thomas Cipollone, Individually and As Executor of the Estate of Rose D. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., et al.
1112:
561:
511:
222:
196:
1315:
560:
complaints on August 1, 1983, just over a year before her death. The action was brought in federal court as a
182:
451:
443:
1351:
1198:
165:
1408:
1137:
522:
286:
213:
136:
1308:
1155:
925:
780:
then a new case can be filed, as there is no discussion of tort litigation or damage claims in the Act.
752:
The filing of a “failure-to-warn” claim against the tobacco industry by Edell was invalid and prohibited
121:
327:
Stevens, joined by Rehnquist, White, Blackmun, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter (Parts I, II, III, and IV)
838:
dragged on for another decade and then some, until a settlement order was approved on April 13, 2004.
613:
425:
985:"The Cigarette Century: the Rise, Fall, and Deadly Persistence of the Product That Defined America."
667:
Cipollone was 80% at fault, based on their assessment of her personal choice to smoke being a factor
1053:
140:
1333:
1278:
740:
605:
179:
1368:
406:
Warning: The Surgeon General has determined that cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health.
1270:
1226:
1163:
988:
475:
467:
420:
278:
258:
1057:
1324:
1262:
549:
459:
162:
808:
310:
298:
1082:
1342:
928:
609:
471:
290:
274:
584:
They had committed fraud by failing to act on their knowledge of the harms of smoking
379:
Surgeon General's Warning; Live Press Conference; January 1964 First Report on Smoking
1377:
1282:
518:
144:
1083:"Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Tobacco Use -- United States, 1900-1999"
536:
302:
791:
124:
649:
463:
455:
361:
Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965, 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 1331-1340
266:
726:
502:
becoming more laxed, new lawsuits surged once again against tobacco companies.
855:
The financial resources of tobacco companies surpasses that of all plaintiffs
514:
1274:
1167:
556:
against Liggett and Myers, Philip Morris, and Lorillard composed of fourteen
1369:
Full Text of Volume 505 of the United States Reports at www.supremecourt.gov
510:
Rose Cipollone began smoking at the age of sixteen. She continually smoked
1360:
544:
587:
They had failed to fully inform the public of the true risks of smoking
552:. In need of a client, Edell took on Cipollone's case and filed suit in
1266:
1202:
1141:
770:
the industry conspired to hide evidence concerning the harms of smoking
707:
In 1990, the Third Circuit appellate court threw out the verdict and:
1116:
695:
Emblem for the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
690:
648:
493:
concrete association between smoking and diseases aforementioned.
410:
676:
Court ruled that the company did in fact contribute to her death.
335:
Stevens, joined by Rehnquist, White and O'Connor (Parts V and VI)
557:
600:
Liggett and Myers, Philip Morris, and Lorillard all cited the
85:
17:
1043:: How Wide Will the Floodgates of Cigarette Litigation Open?"
218:
Ruling on motion reversed, remanded for further proceedings.
723:
tobacco, and the Act cited in the first trial of the case.
1389:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court
227:
Motion to strike federal law preemption defense granted.
415:
9th Surgeon General of the United States, Luther Terry
602:
1965 Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertisement Act
355:
347:
339:
331:
323:
318:
247:
232:
157:
152:
116:
106:
97:
78:
831:was denied withdrawal in the last remaining case,
554:U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
392:case. In a split opinion, the Court held that the
795:United States Capital Building, Washington D.C.
758:Limited common law claims preempted by statute
1188:
1186:
1184:
1127:
1125:
399:Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965
8:
1032:
1030:
1028:
1026:
1024:
1022:
1020:
730:United States Supreme Court, Washington D.C.
484:Pritchard v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co.
201:Motion to strike design defect claim granted
1018:
1016:
1014:
1012:
1010:
1008:
1006:
1004:
1002:
1000:
618:U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
208:Certiorari denied, case returned for trial.
979:
977:
975:
973:
971:
969:
967:
965:
963:
961:
959:
957:
75:
955:
953:
951:
949:
947:
945:
943:
941:
939:
937:
739:The Supreme Court addressed the issue of
604:. The companies argued the act supported
61:Learn how and when to remove this message
807:
790:
725:
419:The court's holding and some of Justice
366:
206:107 S. Ct. 907, 93 L. Ed. 2d 857 (1987)
1225:. Tobacco Documents.org. Archived from
871:
397:choice. The ruling also questioned the
1050:38 American Univ. Law Rev. 1021 (1988)
776:or if express warranties were breached
746:Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act
606:preempted independent state regulation
343:Blackmun, joined by Kennedy and Souter
1248:
1246:
1244:
913:
911:
909:
907:
905:
903:
901:
899:
897:
895:
448:peripheral arterial occlusive disease
73:1992 United States Supreme Court case
7:
1394:United States federal preemption law
1217:
1215:
1213:
1211:
893:
891:
889:
887:
885:
883:
881:
879:
877:
875:
91:Supreme Court of the United States
33:tone or style may not reflect the
14:
1384:United States Supreme Court cases
1311:504 (1992) is available from:
787:Public outcry and media attention
773:or lied to the public about them,
1301:Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
1194:Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
1133:Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
1108:Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
1041:Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
918:Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
817:Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
815:The U.S. Supreme Court remanded
385:Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
84:
79:Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
43:guide to writing better articles
22:
1404:1992 in United States case law
1399:United States tobacco case law
1154:LEVIN, MYRON (June 20, 1988).
1054:American University Law School
1:
1223:"Haines v. Liggett Group Inc"
833:Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc.
388:, 505 U.S. 504 (1992), was a
1414:Smoking in the United States
404:The warning at issue said: "
528:Lorillard's True cigarettes
489:Fine v. Philip Morris, Inc.
390:United States Supreme Court
1430:
1361:Oyez (oral argument audio)
1255:Journal of Business Ethics
1113:593 F. Supp. 1146
741:preemption of federal law
653:New Jersey District Court
499:Surgeon General's Warning
394:Surgeon General's warning
360:
252:
237:
100:Reargued January 13, 1992
83:
987:New York: Basic, 2009,
562:Diversity of citizenship
351:Scalia, joined by Thomas
468:cancer of the esophagus
452:cerebrovascular disease
143:407; 60 U.S.L.W. 4703;
812:
796:
731:
696:
654:
506:Life of Rose Cipollone
476:cancer of the pancreas
444:coronary heart disease
416:
380:
98:Argued October 8, 1991
1037:Jacobson, Douglas N.
811:
794:
729:
694:
652:
472:cancer of the bladder
414:
378:
102:Decided June 24, 1992
1199:893 F.2d 541
1138:789 F.2d 181
614:interlocutory appeal
460:cancer of the larynx
426:Altria Group v. Good
145:CCH Prod. Liab. Rep.
1352:Library of Congress
1229:on November 3, 2014
287:Sandra Day O'Connor
1267:10.1007/BF00384524
813:
797:
732:
697:
655:
417:
381:
263:Associate Justices
1160:Los Angeles Times
993:978-0-465-07048-0
983:Brandt, Allan M.
376:
365:
364:
259:William Rehnquist
71:
70:
63:
37:used on Knowledge
35:encyclopedic tone
1421:
1365:
1359:
1356:
1350:
1347:
1341:
1338:
1332:
1329:
1323:
1320:
1314:
1287:
1286:
1250:
1239:
1238:
1236:
1234:
1219:
1206:
1196:
1190:
1179:
1178:
1176:
1174:
1151:
1145:
1135:
1129:
1120:
1110:
1104:
1098:
1097:
1095:
1093:
1079:
1073:
1072:
1070:
1068:
1063:on July 26, 2014
1062:
1056:. Archived from
1047:
1034:
995:
981:
932:
915:
700:Court of Appeals
550:tobacco industry
519:Liggett and Myer
377:
248:Court membership
203:(not appealed).
88:
87:
76:
66:
59:
55:
52:
46:
45:for suggestions.
41:See Knowledge's
26:
25:
18:
1429:
1428:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1374:
1373:
1363:
1357:
1354:
1348:
1345:
1339:
1336:
1330:
1327:
1321:
1318:
1312:
1296:
1291:
1290:
1261:(11): 831–840.
1252:
1251:
1242:
1232:
1230:
1221:
1220:
1209:
1192:
1191:
1182:
1172:
1170:
1153:
1152:
1148:
1131:
1130:
1123:
1106:
1105:
1101:
1091:
1089:
1081:
1080:
1076:
1066:
1064:
1060:
1045:
1036:
1035:
998:
982:
935:
916:
873:
868:
844:
806:
789:
737:
702:
660:
647:
626:
575:
570:
508:
435:
367:
311:Clarence Thomas
301:
299:Anthony Kennedy
289:
279:John P. Stevens
277:
216:(3d Cir. 1986)
148:
101:
99:
93:
74:
67:
56:
50:
47:
40:
31:This article's
27:
23:
12:
11:
5:
1427:
1425:
1417:
1416:
1411:
1406:
1401:
1396:
1391:
1386:
1376:
1375:
1372:
1371:
1366:
1334:Google Scholar
1295:
1294:External links
1292:
1289:
1288:
1240:
1207:
1180:
1146:
1121:
1099:
1074:
996:
933:
870:
869:
867:
864:
863:
862:
859:
856:
843:
840:
805:
802:
788:
785:
778:
777:
774:
771:
760:
759:
756:
753:
736:
733:
720:
719:
716:
712:
701:
698:
685:
684:
680:
677:
674:
671:
668:
659:
658:District Court
656:
646:
643:
625:
622:
610:H. Lee Sarokin
598:
597:
594:
591:
588:
585:
582:
574:
571:
569:
566:
507:
504:
434:
431:
363:
362:
358:
357:
353:
352:
349:
348:Concur/dissent
345:
344:
341:
340:Concur/dissent
337:
336:
333:
329:
328:
325:
321:
320:
316:
315:
314:
313:
291:Antonin Scalia
275:Harry Blackmun
264:
261:
256:
250:
249:
245:
244:
235:
234:
230:
229:
225:(D.N.J. 1984)
199:(D.N.J. 1988)
159:
155:
154:
150:
149:
134:
118:
114:
113:
108:
107:Full case name
104:
103:
95:
94:
89:
81:
80:
72:
69:
68:
30:
28:
21:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1426:
1415:
1412:
1410:
1409:Liggett Group
1407:
1405:
1402:
1400:
1397:
1395:
1392:
1390:
1387:
1385:
1382:
1381:
1379:
1370:
1367:
1362:
1353:
1344:
1335:
1326:
1317:
1316:CourtListener
1310:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1297:
1293:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1249:
1247:
1245:
1241:
1228:
1224:
1218:
1216:
1214:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1195:
1189:
1187:
1185:
1181:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1150:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1134:
1128:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1109:
1103:
1100:
1088:
1084:
1078:
1075:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1044:
1042:
1033:
1031:
1029:
1027:
1025:
1023:
1021:
1019:
1017:
1015:
1013:
1011:
1009:
1007:
1005:
1003:
1001:
997:
994:
990:
986:
980:
978:
976:
974:
972:
970:
968:
966:
964:
962:
960:
958:
956:
954:
952:
950:
948:
946:
944:
942:
940:
938:
934:
930:
927:
923:
919:
914:
912:
910:
908:
906:
904:
902:
900:
898:
896:
894:
892:
890:
888:
886:
884:
882:
880:
878:
876:
872:
865:
860:
857:
854:
853:
852:
848:
841:
839:
837:
834:
830:
825:
823:
818:
810:
803:
801:
793:
786:
784:
781:
775:
772:
769:
768:
767:
764:
757:
754:
751:
750:
749:
747:
742:
735:Supreme Court
734:
728:
724:
717:
713:
710:
709:
708:
705:
699:
693:
689:
681:
678:
675:
672:
669:
666:
665:
664:
657:
651:
644:
642:
638:
634:
630:
623:
621:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
595:
592:
589:
586:
583:
580:
579:
578:
572:
567:
565:
563:
559:
555:
551:
546:
540:
538:
532:
529:
524:
520:
516:
513:
505:
503:
500:
494:
491:
490:
485:
479:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
439:
432:
430:
429:
427:
422:
413:
409:
407:
402:
400:
395:
391:
387:
386:
359:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
319:Case opinions
317:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
265:
262:
260:
257:
255:Chief Justice
254:
253:
251:
246:
242:
236:
231:
228:
224:
221:593 F. Supp.
220:
219:
215:
210:
209:
204:
202:
198:
195:683 F. Supp.
193:
192:
188:
184:
181:
176:
171:
167:
164:
160:
156:
151:
146:
142:
138:
132:
131:
126:
123:
119:
115:
112:
109:
105:
96:
92:
82:
77:
65:
62:
54:
51:February 2023
44:
38:
36:
29:
20:
19:
16:
1300:
1258:
1254:
1231:. Retrieved
1227:the original
1193:
1173:November 29,
1171:. Retrieved
1159:
1149:
1132:
1107:
1102:
1092:November 29,
1090:. Retrieved
1086:
1077:
1065:. Retrieved
1058:the original
1049:
1040:
984:
931: (1992).
917:
849:
845:
835:
832:
828:
826:
821:
816:
814:
798:
782:
779:
765:
761:
738:
721:
715:information.
706:
703:
686:
661:
639:
635:
631:
627:
599:
576:
541:
537:hypertension
533:
512:Chesterfield
509:
495:
487:
480:
440:
436:
424:
418:
405:
403:
384:
383:
382:
356:Laws applied
306:
303:David Souter
294:
282:
270:
240:
226:
217:
211:
207:
205:
200:
194:
190:
177:
173:
153:Case history
128:
110:
57:
48:
32:
15:
1233:November 3,
1205: 1990).
1144: 1986).
1119: 1984).
1087:www.cdc.gov
1067:November 3,
683:opportunity
624:Second case
464:oral cancer
456:lung cancer
332:Concurrence
267:Byron White
1378:Categories
866:References
573:First case
523:Parliament
515:cigarettes
433:Background
139:2608; 120
1283:144994656
1275:0167-4544
1168:0458-3035
829:Cipollone
822:Cipollone
804:Aftermath
212:789 F.2d
141:L. Ed. 2d
117:Citations
1299:Text of
545:Asbestos
324:Majority
180:F. Supp.
1325:Findlaw
1203:3d Cir.
1142:3d Cir.
1039:"After
616:by the
421:Stevens
233:Holding
170:3d Cir.
1364:
1358:
1355:
1349:
1346:
1343:Justia
1340:
1337:
1331:
1328:
1322:
1319:
1313:
1281:
1273:
1201: (
1197:,
1166:
1140: (
1136:,
1117:D.N.J.
1115: (
1111:,
991:
920:,
842:Legacy
836:Haines
645:Ruling
564:case.
309:
307:·
305:
297:
295:·
293:
285:
283:·
281:
273:
271:·
269:
189:1988)
187:D.N.J.
175:trial.
172:1990)
137:S. Ct.
1307:
1279:S2CID
1061:(PDF)
1046:(PDF)
924:
568:Trial
158:Prior
1309:U.S.
1271:ISSN
1235:2014
1175:2017
1164:ISSN
1094:2017
1069:2014
989:ISBN
926:U.S.
558:tort
223:1146
197:1487
178:693
163:F.2d
161:893
135:112
130:more
122:U.S.
120:505
1305:505
1263:doi
929:504
922:505
482:as
214:181
183:208
166:541
125:504
1380::
1303:,
1277:.
1269:.
1257:.
1243:^
1210:^
1183:^
1162:.
1158:.
1124:^
1085:.
1052:.
1048:.
999:^
936:^
874:^
486:,
474:,
470:,
466:,
462:,
458:,
454:,
450:,
446:,
408:"
1285:.
1265::
1259:8
1237:.
1177:.
1096:.
1071:.
428:.
185:(
168:(
133:)
127:(
64:)
58:(
53:)
49:(
39:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.