Tobacco Case Gets Second Go-Around
From the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin
To one side, it was “the most massive fraud in American history.” To the other, the Illinois Supreme Court should not become the first court to overrule itself based on a federal agency’s amicus brief.
Those were the characterizations lobbed across the courtroom by lawyers in the long-running, multibillion-dollar lawsuit against tobacco giant Philip Morris that returned to the Supreme Court Tuesday morning after a decade of legal-system wrangling.
For roughly 50 minutes, the state’s top justices heard lawyers for the company argue the court’s original decision to toss a $10.1 billion verdict was the right one.
An attorney for the plaintiffs, meanwhile, argued an appellate court was correct to reinstate the litigation last year on the basis of new evidence.
The original claim was that the company violated the Consumer Fraud Act, tricking consumers into purchasing cigarettes by using terms such as “light” and “low tar” to make them seem safer.
The high court overturned the verdict in 2005, saying the Federal Trade Commission had authorized the descriptors through consent decrees in 1971 and 1995.
Read more in our daily News Update...
From the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin
To one side, it was “the most massive fraud in American history.” To the other, the Illinois Supreme Court should not become the first court to overrule itself based on a federal agency’s amicus brief.
Those were the characterizations lobbed across the courtroom by lawyers in the long-running, multibillion-dollar lawsuit against tobacco giant Philip Morris that returned to the Supreme Court Tuesday morning after a decade of legal-system wrangling.
For roughly 50 minutes, the state’s top justices heard lawyers for the company argue the court’s original decision to toss a $10.1 billion verdict was the right one.
An attorney for the plaintiffs, meanwhile, argued an appellate court was correct to reinstate the litigation last year on the basis of new evidence.
The original claim was that the company violated the Consumer Fraud Act, tricking consumers into purchasing cigarettes by using terms such as “light” and “low tar” to make them seem safer.
The high court overturned the verdict in 2005, saying the Federal Trade Commission had authorized the descriptors through consent decrees in 1971 and 1995.
Read more in our daily News Update...