Get up to 50% Off + MORE! Code: MML18 Ends: 5/28 Details

  1. Help
Get up to 50% Off + MORE! Code: MML18 Ends: 5/28 Details

Ashe Vande Vrede Supreme Court Case

Hello, you either have JavaScript turned off or an old version of Adobe's Flash Player. Get the latest Flash player.

Ashe Vande Vrede Supreme Court Case - Page Text Content

S: Cipollone v. Liggett Group

FC: Cipollone v. Liggett Group | by: Wyatt Ashe & Kayla Vande Vrede

1: Table of Contents: | -Background (pgs 2-7) -Crucial Information (pgs 8-15) -Supreme Court (pgs 16-21) -Aftermath (pgs 22-25)

2: Background Information: Historical Significance of Tobacco | -17th and 18th centuries cash crop -American Revolution (used to pay down payments for loans to France) -Tobacco leaf was stamped on money in American colonies

3: 1864- cigarettes were rolled by hand in the first factory 1881- tobacco rolling machine by James Bonsack made production faster; cigarettes cheaper because more readily available

4: The defendants: Tobacco Companies | -Liggett Group, Inc- made Chesterfield brand cigarettes in 1912; fifth largest tobacco company -Philip Morris- largest cigarette maker in the world -Lorillard- oldest tobacco company in the US

5: The plaintiff: Rose Cipollone | -Born Rose Defrancesco in 1925 -Started smoking at age 16 to look older and "glamorous"—smoked for forty years -married husband, Antonio -First developed smoker’s cough, then a doctor found a spot on her lung in 1981, lung removed in 1982, later she died of lung cancer (October 21, 1984) | "Standing to Sue"

6: Appealing Advertising: | “like millions of other teenagers, [Rose] became a victim of appealing cigarette advertising, peer pressure, and nicotine addiction” Portrayed movie stars, billboards, newspapers, magazines the way sex is advertised today Ex. Philip Morris advertised on “I Love Lucy”

7: Social acceptance: | -Socially acceptable to smoke in the 1940’s. In until 1964 the Surgeon General put out a “stern warning” to alert Americans about the dangers of smoking. -Health warning labels didn’t actually appear on packages until 1966. -Sale of cigarettes increased from 4.4 billion to 73 billion between 1900 and 1924.

8: Crucial Case Information: Important Questions | -How much of the responsibility of Rose Cipollone’s lung cancer was hers? -Did she know the dangers of smoking, and when? -How is the guilt shared between Rose (knew it was bad for her after she was addicted), the tobacco companies (driven by profit and misled the public though they knew the dangers of smoking), and the federal government (“had its unwillingness to enforce rules for the tobacco industry been solely a constitutional matter of states’ rights vs. federal rights)?

9: Did the tobacco companies know of the negative effects of smoking? | Evidence shows they did... An experiment by Dr. Ernst Wynder (for Liggett) performed experiments on mice by painting cigarette tar on their backs (this usually collects in a smoker’s lungs). The report showed that some of the mice developed tumors and died. Rather than publicly announce the case they put out an ad that said there was no evidence that smoking caused cancer.

10: How the case got started.. | -August 1, 1983- Rose and Antonio filed their civil law suit against Liggett, Philip Morris, and Lorillard (the brands Rose had smoked all her life) in the federal district court in Newark, New Jersey. -It went to federal district court because it dealt with federal law—the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 -Gave four days of depositions, although she was undergoing chemotherapy (They both started the suit; she died in 1984 and he continued it)

11: -After federal district court—the case went to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The court found that the warning labels on cigarette packages did shield tobacco companies. Antonio appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court with a writ of certiorari | The next step:

12: Their arguments: | Product liability (legal responsibility of makers and sellers for defective or harmful products) Strict liability Negligence Intentional tort Breach of warranty (tobacco companies violated ad promises)

13: Prior Case Precedents: | -Until this case, tobacco makers had successfully defended themselves from claims because they had financial and political power -First wave of cases in the 1950’s -Second wave cases in 1980’s -Lost because: -Legal theories difficult to prove -Long, prolonged court cases—used up the plaintiff’s money -Lack of medical evidence -Lack of understanding of nicotine

14: -Pritchard v. Liggett & Myers -Cooper v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co

15: Lartigue v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co

16: Supreme Court | When: Argued October 8, 1991 Decided June 24, 1992 Case #(505 U.S. 504)

17: Who: -Chief Justice William Rehnquist -Associate Judges: Byron White, Harry Blackmun, John Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas -Majority: Stevens, Rehnquist, White, Blackmun, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter -Split opinion 7-2

18: -Did the Surgeon General’s warning prevent smokers from suing tobacco companies? -Did Rose choose to smoke freely under the effects of nicotine? | Constitutional Questions at Stake:

19: -Did the protective order place unlawful limits on Cipollone’s First Amendment freedoms? (the protective order allowed tobacco companies to label any of the documents as secret) -Did the tobacco companies have a constitutional right to keep their documents private?

20: The Ruling: | -7-2 split decision in Cipollone's favor -The 1966 Act limited preemption to state regulations of warnings and advertisements -Found that the Surgeon General’s warning did not preclude (prevent) suit by smokers against tobacco companies on several claims. The warning at the issue said: “Warning: the Surgeon General has determined that cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health”

21: Tobacco companies were somewhat protected after the Surgeon General's warning was changed from "may be hazardous" to "is dangerous" because the people were informed.

22: Aftermath and detailed results | 1. Court held that federally mandated warnings do not bar smokers from suing manufacturers under state personal-injury laws 2. Smokers cannot sue on the basis that the companies failed to warn them 3. Languate in the Cigarette Labeling Act preempted state tort law claims

23: 4. Individuals may claim that the tobacco companies made fraudulent statements in their advertising to mislead people about the dangers of smoking.

24: 5. “assumption of risk” – if an individual knows and understands the harms of smoking and chooses to continue smoking, that individual cannot profit from any harm caused by smoking 6.In the case, Kemp v. Medtronic (plaintiff suffered injuries after cardiac pacemakers lead failed)—claims preempted by federal law

25: 7.Opinion had majority opinion until Altria Group v. Good (16 years later) until it gained full majority support

26: tobacco as a cash crop tobacco tax roller rose cipollone Philip morris ilovelucy Smoking scenes in the movies mice smoking ingredients sm-seal writ gavel cigarettes2 big tobacco smoke William-rehnquist smoking-US ads warning supreme court | picture sources:

27: Sergis, Diana. Cipollone v. Liggett Group: Suing Tobacco Companies. N.p.: Enslow Publishers, 2001. Print. CIPOLLONE v. LIGGETT GROUP. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 16 May 2012. . | info sources:

Sizes: mini|medium|large|colossal
Default User
  • By: kay v.
  • Joined: over 6 years ago
  • Published Mixbooks: 1
No contributors

About This Mixbook

  • Title: Ashe Vande Vrede Supreme Court Case
  • Tags: None
  • Published: about 6 years ago