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.

Non-Tech : Philip Morris - A Stock For Wealth Or Poverty (MO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Xpiderman who wrote (1879)	6/23/1998 2:47:00 PM
From: don kramer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6439

MOST IMPORTANT and SIGNIFICANT "...the court found that the smoker's lawyer should not have been allowed to argue that cigarette warning labels were inadequate or to introduce certain confidential industry documents. Along with the commentary by the Ohio Supreme Court and the Pennsylvania Federal appeals decision ...comments...re: resulting in favorable rulings for Tobacco. The Florida Appeals court , ruled that the warning label were not to be dismissed or to be used by the plaintiff as an attack. The Federal Law, which placed the warning label, states that specifically, plaintiffs, can not use the label as an "inadequate" warning.... Yes, this is difficult to appreciate and somewhat obscure . But the reasoning and logic of the Florida court, in it's direct commentary, essentially admonishes the plaintiff's lawyer, and in essense the court said, (in my words), you, Mr. Lawyer of the Plaintiff, should have never done this , your plainfiff, not only was too late to file, but the merit of your attack, that the warning label is insufficient, is in correct. This is an important case, but, contrary to the self proclaimed legal expert, which CNBC presents, this case and the FEDERAL Judges's commentary does indeed have wide ranging impact on other's suing. A court ruling is important, BUT, the commentary is also important, because it provides the logic and thinking for others, who contemplate presenting legal action. In other words, the commentary from a high court, his a "hint" at what others may expect. That is why this Florida case is important. dk