Cool!
Posted on 02/20/2007 7:22:59 AM PST by BulletBobCo
Banner only so far.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
The U.S. Supreme Court has thrown out a $79.5 million punitive damages verdict against cigarette maker Philip Morris
Good on the Supremes.
Good. They should toss all lawsuits against the tobacco companies.
10:03 AM | Lyle Denniston | Comments (0)
The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that it is unconstitutional for a jury to award punitive damages out of a desire to punish a company for harming individuals other than those directly involved in the lawsuit -- that is, "strangers to the litigation." The Court ruled 5-4 in the case of Philip Morris USA v. Williams Estate (05-1256).
Other decisons on the merits are expected shortly.
In an order issued before the rulings came down, the Court agreed to decide whethere states have the authority to use either a convention or a primary election system for choosing nominees to run for state office in the general election. The case is New York State Board of Elections v.Torres (06-766).
The Court also agreed to hear a pauper case, Logan v. U.S. (06-6911). More on this later.
Smoking may be bad for your health. Have you heard??
(((.)))
The problem is the states have already spent the money in anticipation.
Sounds like the states have a problem eh? lol
Somebody will have to explain to me why some smoke without any harmful effects, and others die at age 40. When somebody expains that in a way that I can understand, I MAY conceed that it MAY be harmful to some individuals.
Cool!
Expect taxes to go up
NOT!
Nice!
Personal liberty dodges yet another bullet.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/20/news/companies/philip_morris.reut/
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside a $79.5 million punitive damages award won by a longtime smoker's widow against Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris unit.
By a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled the giant tobacco company could not be punished for harm to other smokers. The case involved Mayola Williams, an Oregon woman whose husband died of lung cancer in 1997 after smoking for more than 40 years.
In a separate case, the Supreme Court declined to hear a constitutional challenge by tobacco companies to Minnesota's 75-cent-per-pack health impact fee on cigarettes.
Shares of Altria (down $0.16 to $86.04, Charts) were little changed during morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange. Shares of competitors Imperial Tobacco Group (down $0.85 to $84.40, Charts) and British American Tobacco Plc (down $0.08 to $61.80, Charts) edged lower.
Breyer wrote the opinion. It makes me wonder exactly how they reasoned through this one...will have to grab the decision later on.
The verdict "went up in smoke." LOL
That's a cool picture of your father.
Last I checked, cigarettes were legal products.
I'm no legal scholar, but this looks like it could have FAR reaching effects regarding the way class actions suits operate. This appears to be a VERY good ruling.
Not only did Breyer write it, but Scalia and Thomas were in the minority (along with Ginzburg and Stevens). Roberts and Alito joined Breyer. So conservative judges came down on both sides equally.
John Edwards will be wearing black.
Excellent. I wonder what this means for the other cases?
Beyond that, I've always had a problem with the idea of punitive damages in civil trials. It is not the job of a civil court to punish. Civil trials are about equity. Criminal proceedings are about punishment. If a prosecutor decides not to (or cannot) bring a criminal action, then the state has decided not to punish that defendant. A civil suit then, is merely about making an equitable settlement of the issue between the parties. IMHO.
So is AIDS, but you don't see the supreme court doing anything to stop the behavior that spreads it.
No sounds like the taxpayers as usual have a problem
EXCELLENT news!!!
Can't answer your question, but I did see a piece in the Wall Street Journal (their regular science column) a year or two ago that said, what with genetic mappping now a reality, they're looking into why some substances are severely toxic to a lot of individuals, and have little or no effect on others.
There was another column a few months earlier or later also on individual differences (though I don't even remember the specifics). I think it's good that they're looking at individual differences -- so many studies are so big that any individual responses get blurred out, and we have too many one-size-fits-all "solutions."
What a weird lineup! Have they ever broken down like that before?
Why do you guys insist upon being so stubbornly immature?
Smoking is bad for your health, period. Take a look at any lung X-ray of smokers vs non smokers and it's not a debate. However, some bodies deal with it differently and some can survive throughout life with no debilitating outward effects. However, damage is done regardless of outward signs.
I happen to enjoy cigars, but I don't delude myself as to potential hazards.
By all means, enjoy your smoke, but just stop with the immature defiance in the face of the undeniable facts.
Bingo. Best part of this entire charade.
Good picture. Remember, smoking added many of years of enjoyment (and some small luxury) in those war years when people were trying to kill him.
Had he never smoked, it might have added 5-10 years at the end of his life, when it's hard to move, everything aches, etc.
Organ donors are the true quitters. God gave you a full set of organs to use. If you don't wear yourself completely out by the time you die, you have let Him down!
So is alcohol, but you don't see big money law suits going to the court. Why not?
Oh yeah. The Kennedy fortune is wrapped up in liquor. That makes it politically correct.
Time for a Red Auerbach victory cigar
Nobody is arguing that smoking is good for anyone. It is harmful, to some degree... and how harmful it is depends on many factors. For most people, it's only moderate in effect and they've decided they can live with it in exchange for the pleasure they receive. The worst of the effects are distributed more or less randomly. Some people live long happy lives and smoke the whole time. Some people never drink nor smoke and have a coronary at 45 or just deteriorate slowly and painfully over the last thirty years of their lives. Life's a crap shoot.
The most obnoxious thing of all, is a state that on one hand generates revenue from the sale of a legal product, and on the other hand squeezes damages out of that company for selling a product that that same state leaves legal. That's just wrong. They should make up their minds. I think the state should just get out of the business altogether and leave people alone.
But I believe is personal responsibility!!!
Good decision.
The opinion:
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/05-1256_All.pdf
Interesting allignment of Justices.
Roberts, Alito,Kennedy,Breyer and Souter for reversing;
Thomas, Ginsburg,Scalia, Stephens for affirming.
"Honestly, Your Honor, it is not about the money."
L
All of my Dad's pictures from WWII in the south Pacific look like publicity stills from McHale's Navy (not that there is anything wrong with that!)
Dad is 87 and still kicking!
So is alcohol, but you don't see big money law suits going to the court. Why not? Oh yeah. The Kennedy fortune is wrapped up in liquor. That makes it politically correct.
I don't think that was his point.
Obviously, the answer to your question is to follow the money. These lawyers don't give a hoot about what's good or bad for you, they only care about the 40 to 60% vig they get from the settlements.
If they feel they can make money, they'll go after anything, including liquor regardless of the Kennedy fortune.
AS one FReeper so eloquently put it, AIDS is bad for you too but you don't see anyone trying to regulate the behavior that causes it ;-)
Follow the $$$...it 'll lead you to the real answer 99.9% of the time.
Attorney's make a nice chunk of change dealing with DUI's and other alcohol related criminality.
Since neither Roberts or Alito have proven to be conservative (they may yet, but it's looking more and more doubtful) I'm not sure who you are referring to as conservatives that have joined the majority.
Putting aside the smoking issue (I never have and wouldn't award damages to those who do), this case is another blow against states rights and further erodes the constitution. This is not a great day for those who wish to reign in the power of the national government.
Thats not Zarf's point. His point is that cigarette smoking is CLEARLY harmful, to everyone, its just that some deal with it better than others. I wholeheartedly agree with Zarf on the matter. You see, its not one or the other, one CAN agree that smoking is bad for ones health, while at the same time agreeing that it is a personal responsibility matter, and that these lawsuits should not ever come to trial.
Great, not just for the cigarette makers, I'm not too concerned about them, but for the principle behind this verdict. The only ones that really benefit from excessive punitive damages are the trial lawyers.
Who asked for you to sermonize?
Attorney's make a nice chunk of change dealing with DUI's and other alcohol related criminality.
Yeah, but they don't go after the Kennedy money. They don't go after the manufacturers of the liquor, do they?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.