Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chic_hearne who wrote (8151)	8/2/2000 5:42:02 PM
From: IceShark	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 436258

You know chic, I'm pretty limp wristed on handing out criticism, but that AMD call is way less harmful than this. -g- You need an oosik soaked in kerosene stuck where the sun don't shine to wake you up to your senses. -g-

To: chic_hearne who wrote (8151)	8/2/2000 11:12:04 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 436258

In my opinion (I'm a lawyer), the issue of whether food prices will go up is a non-issue because it is irrelevant to the legality of the verdict. The government can't break the tobacco companies up, a la Microsoft, this isn't an antitrust case so that remedy doesn't apply here. What is relevant is the reasoning in the case of BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore [not the vice-president], 116 S.Ct. 1589 (1996). In that case, the United States Supreme Court held for the first time that a punitive damages award was so excessive as to violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Florida law requires that a punitive damage award not be so excessive as to put a company out of business. The plaintiffs presented evidence that the companies could afford to pay, in aggregate, $157 billion. If that finding of fact isn't disturbed on appeal, then by the time this case makes it to the United States Supreme Court, which it probably will, the court will be ruling on a set of facts in which the finder of fact has found that the defendants can afford to pay. Undisturbed findings of fact are binding on appellate courts, they are only empowered to rule on matters of law. I think there is a real chance the verdict will stand. The trial judge isn't going to remit it. Even if the appellate court reverses it, the case will be remanded for a new verdict. It's not going away. I agree that people won't stop smoking. But someone else may be selling them tobacco.