Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Douglas
| Docket Number | SC12-617 |
| Decision Date | 14 March 2013 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
115 cases
-
Berger v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
...F.3d 434 (11th Cir.2016), Walker v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. , 734 F.3d 1278, 1281–86 (11th Cir.2013), and Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas , 110 So.3d 419, 422–25 (Fla.2013). I therefore merely summarize only relevant portions in this order.The Florida Supreme Court approved giving the ......
-
Graham v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
...had preclusive effect in the later individual actions, and the Florida Supreme Court reaffirmed that ruling in Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas , 110 So.3d 419 (Fla. 2013). R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Philip Morris USA Inc. challenge a jury verdict against them in one of those indiv......
-
In re Engle Cases
...that their cigarettes were defective, or that cigarettes cause certain diseases. See id. at 1269–70 ; Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas, 110 So.3d 419, 424–25 (Fla. 2013). Instead, an individual plaintiff would have to prove only (1) that he is a member of the Engle class, and if so, (2) t......
-
Graham v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
...to representations of fact made by said defendants; and (viii) that all of the Engle defendants were negligent.Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas, 110 So.3d 419, 424–25 (Fla.2013) (alterations omitted) (footnote omitted) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting Engle III, 945 So.2d at 1276–77 (F......
Get Started for Free
1 firm's commentaries
-
Florida Real Property And Business Litigation Report, Volume 14, Issue 3
...one requested in R.J. Reynolds v. Prentice, 290 So. 3d 963 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). 3 comparative fault, and damages predominate.’ ” 110 So. 3d 419, 424 (Fla. 2013) (quoting Engle, 945 So. 2d at 1268) (emphasis added). In the context of fraudulent concealment, “causation” includes individual re......
5 books & journal articles
-
The Pesky Persistence of Class Action Tolling in Mass Tort Multidistrict Litigation
...“res judicata effect” in subsequent actions filed by individual class members. Id. at 1254. See also Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas, 110 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 2013) (clarifying the scope of the preclusive effect of the Engle findings). 63. In re Rhone-Poulenc , 51 F.3d at 1294. 64. Id. at 12......
-
Pursuing Public Health Through Litigation.
...issues. Not surprisingly, defendants appealed the res judicata findings. Many rounds ensued, but, in Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas, 110 So. 3d 419, 436 (Fla. 2013), the Florida Supreme Court eventually rejected the defendants' objections, and the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently denied ......
-
Class Actions
...Id. at 1175-77. 115. Engle v. Liggett Grp., 945 So. 2d 1246, 1269-70 (Fla. 2006).116. Id.117. Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas, 110 So. 3d 419, 430 (Fla. 2013).118. Walker, 734 F.3d at 1289.119. Graham, 857 F.3d at 1180-81.120. Id. at 1185-86.121. Id. at 1181.122. Id.123. Id. at 1182. 124......
-
$______ VERDICT INCLUDING $______ IN PUNITIVE DAMAGES - TOBACCO - STRICT LIABILITY - PLAINTIFF CONTENDS DECEDENT HUSBAND AND FATHER DIED OF CANCER FROM CIGARETTES PRODUCED BY DEFENDANT TOBACCO COMPANY - DEFENDANT ARGUES PLAINTIFF DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR INCLUSION IN CLASS ACTION BECAUSE DECEDENT DIED OF NON-SMOKING RELATED CANCER.
...federal law. As it conceded, however, the Florida Supreme Court has already rejected such arguments. Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas, 110 So. 3d 419, 428–29 (Fla. 2013); R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Marotta, 214 So. 3d 590, 605 (Fla. 2017). The Court is obliged to follow these precedents......
Get Started for Free
