Illinois High Court Poised To Examine Three Blockbuster Cases
From the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin
This could be a month to remember at the Illinois Supreme Court.
In its upcoming term, the state’s top judges could rule on a multibillion-dollar verdict, decide the fate of a frozen embryo case and hear arguments on a decades-old precedent denying some legal claims for unmarried couples.
The court will convene for its September term next week after taking a three-month summer break. It’s slated to hear oral arguments in 22 cases beginning a week from today. At some point, it will also issue decisions in cases it has taken under advisement, including Sharon Price v. Philip Morris, No. 117687.
The $10.1 billion verdict against the Philip Morris tobacco company was premised on violations of the Consumer Fraud Act for using “light” and “low-tar” descriptions to make cigarettes seem safer.
The verdict was tossed out by the high court 10 years ago, but re-ignited by a Federal Trade Commission brief in a different case that said the federal government never authorized cigarette-makers to use those descriptions.
Read more in our daily News Update...
From the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin
This could be a month to remember at the Illinois Supreme Court.
In its upcoming term, the state’s top judges could rule on a multibillion-dollar verdict, decide the fate of a frozen embryo case and hear arguments on a decades-old precedent denying some legal claims for unmarried couples.
The court will convene for its September term next week after taking a three-month summer break. It’s slated to hear oral arguments in 22 cases beginning a week from today. At some point, it will also issue decisions in cases it has taken under advisement, including Sharon Price v. Philip Morris, No. 117687.
The $10.1 billion verdict against the Philip Morris tobacco company was premised on violations of the Consumer Fraud Act for using “light” and “low-tar” descriptions to make cigarettes seem safer.
The verdict was tossed out by the high court 10 years ago, but re-ignited by a Federal Trade Commission brief in a different case that said the federal government never authorized cigarette-makers to use those descriptions.
Read more in our daily News Update...