Court Rules Against Tobacco Companies
Court Alerts
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a tobacco industry request to intervene in a lawsuit by over a thousand West Virginia smokers.
The justices declined to examine a trial procedure in which a jury first determines whether smokers as a group are entitled to punitive damages before establishing whether any single smoker is entitled to compensation.
Later, a new jury addresses issues unique to each alleged smoking victim who sued.
West Virginia courts are allowing the approach, which has been used in other types of lawsuits, including claims for asbestos exposure.
The second phases of such trials rarely occur, because the two sides usually settle once they know the value of the case.
Tobacco companies oppose use of the legal device, which lawyers call "reverse bifurcation."
The tobacco industry said a jury doesn't know until later in a case whether any smoker was actually harmed or how serious any injury was; which defendants if any were responsible; or the amount of compensatory damages any defendant owes to smokers.
In addition to helping resolve suits over asbestos exposure, reverse bifurcation has been applied to claims against makers of the dangerous diet drug fen-phen.
In asking the justices not to take the case, lawyers for the smokers said further delay would mean that most of their clients would die before their cases could be tried, "thus affording the defendants a free pass" for their alleged misconduct.
The smokers say the companies secretly agreed not to market a truly safer cigarette while publicly proclaiming the safety of their own particular brands.
The first phase of the trial was scheduled to begin March 18.
Related listings
-
Court victory for correction officers reversed
Court Alerts 02/24/2008A federal appeals court has reversed a correction officers union's U.S. District Court win against Nassau County, saying the lag payroll procedure imposed on the union members by county officials did not violate the Constitution. The decision Friday ...
-
Supreme Court allows prosecution of NASSCOM chief
Court Alerts 02/22/2008The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the prosecution of Chief of the National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM), Som Mittal, for not providing adequate security to a female employee who was raped and murdered in 2005. “If you ...
-
AIG must show documents to Greenberg, Smith
Court Alerts 02/21/2008American International Group Inc. must give former Chief Executive Officer Maurice R. Greenberg and former Chief Financial Officer Howard I. Smith access to AIG legal documents in their defense against fraud charges brought by the New York attorney g...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.