Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Personal Injury Law Blogs -> New York Legal Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Personal Injury Law
: New York Legal BlogU.S Supreme Court Deals Large Blow To Big Tobacco
By Mark Siesel, Esq.
The United States Supreme Court ruled this past Monday that smokers may sue tobacco companies for fraud in the marketing of "light" cigarettes. In a surprising 5-4 decision considering the conservative, pro-business nature of the Court, the Supreme Court determined that several Maine residents had been deceived by Altria and Philip Morris USA into believing that light cigarettes deliver less tar and nicotine to smokers than regular cigarettes. Although it is true that the light cigarettes do have less tar and nicotine than regular cigarettes, smokers apparently compensate for the difference by taking larger puffs, smoking more cigarettes or inhaling more deeply.
The plaintiffs sued Philip Morris under the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act, claiming that they had been injured by the deceptive advertising and marketing of cigarettes such as Marlboro Lights. The Supreme Court had to decide whether the plaintiffs had the right to sue at all considering the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, which was enacted in 1965 and required tobacco companies to place warnings on their packaging and advertising. The federal law had prohibited the states from making their own similar laws as to smoking and health based on the United States Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which states that when there are conflicts between federal and state laws, federal laws must prevail. The majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, determined that the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act was intended to prevent states from making their own laws about health problems from smoking, not to pre-empt laws such as Maine's which establish a general responsibility not to deceive consumers.
Naturally, the four judges in the minority, Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas, sided with big business in claiming that that the Maine statute was essentially an attempt to get around the federal statute, and was instituted only to regulate smoking and health, not the deceptive business practices of Philip Morris. In a major victory for plaintiffs around the country, the decision will allow dozens of similar lawsuits to proceed in other states. Hopefully, the case will also start a trend by which ordinary Americans will be successful in holding corporations accountable for their dangerous practices.
Full post as published by New York Legal Blog on December 18, 2008 (boomark / email).
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court): Does Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President
Unwed Fathers' Rights in Adoption
Landmark Cases in Adoption Law Shape Law with respect to Unwed Fathers
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
Heart of Atlanta v United States
Supreme Court Decision: Civil Rights Act Protected by Interstate Commerce Clause
Smokeless Tobacco Increases Risk of Stroke and Heart Attack
Smokeless Tobacco Increases Risk of Stroke and Heart Attack
Philip Morris
Jury Decides Against Big Tobacco
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Facing Potential Class Action
Ebay Fined
French Court Sets Fine at $61 Million
Personal Injury
Appeals Court Upholds Congressional Legislation
Tomato Salmonella
Sheetz Convenience Stores agrees to confidential out-of-court settlement with food poisoning victim.

A second blow to tobacco appeal
Oregon Supreme Court Requires Harm in Tobacco Suit
9th Circuit Deals Blow to Altered Crops
Tobacco giants can be sued over low-tar cigarettes
"Court Allows Suit Against 'Light' Cigarette Makers; Companies Face Huge Liabilities Over Marketing"









