Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

High court lifts bar to tobacco liability suits

Article Abstract:

The US Supreme Court in Cipollone v Liggett Group went far towards lifting the bar to cigarette liability suits. In construing the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 as well as a 1969 amendment, the court ruled that plaintiffs could file suit for post-1969 damages using the causes of action of fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy, express warranty and failure to warn, that they could file any kind of tobacco liability suit for damages from the 1966-69 period, but that after 1969, they might not be able to use a failure-to-warn claim.

Author: Blum, Andrew
Publisher: ALM Media, Inc.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1992
Product liability, Products liability, Tobacco

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Drug maker liable for doctor's reputation

Article Abstract:

The Washington Supreme Court has in Klicpera v. Fisons Corp upheld the award of damages to a physician for injury to his reputation due to brain damage suffered by a patient from a drug the doctor prescribed according to drug company instructions. The court held the Washington Consumer Protection Act did not indicate that a victim of a deceptive trade practice had to be the consumer of the goods at issue, thus upholding Dr. Klicpera's standing to sue the pharmaceutical company.

Author: Blum, Andrew
Publisher: ALM Media, Inc.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1993
Pharmaceutical industry, Standing (Law)

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Once shunned, surveys gain favor of courts

Article Abstract:

Surveys are increasingly used in court cases involving trademarks and false advertising disputes, despite continued resistance from some judges and lawyers. Polls and surveys found little judicial favor when first introduced into courts in the 1950s, when critics raised doubts about sampling techniques and said such evidence violated hearsay rules. Their use rose markedly after 1975, especially to show how the public may have been deceived by an advertisement.

Author: Blum, Andrew
Publisher: ALM Media, Inc.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1995
United States, Public opinion polls, Testimony, Trademarks

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: Cases, Failure to warn (Law), False advertising
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Litigation on implants moves to new frontier; jury says Dow Chemical is liable for silicone of related company, Dow Corning
  • Abstracts: Two controversial incidents said to spotlight Harvard woes. Big names put selves on block for public interest fund-raising
  • Abstracts: His words boost tobacco cases: when Jeffrey Wigand talks, tobacco's foes listen. Smoking foes start to use new ammunition
  • Abstracts: Schwartz on torts; Victor Schwartz's drive for products liability bill edges ever closer. Legal woes on campus increase; due process questions are often at the fore
  • Abstracts: Force of law; federal lawsuits for Rodney King raise new issues. School violence; DeShaney bars liability
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.