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: md1derful who wrote (3459)	3/30/1999 12:32:00 AM
From: don kramer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6439

I will try to answer "what it means" . RE: todays Court ruling... (btw...not sure your allusion to Judge Kaye in the Eagle case, and today's case by Juge Becker in Ohio union vs. tobacco. The Ohio case is much more significant than the Eagle case. and presumably Kaye is well versed in what the other Appeals cases are doing.and thinking..) The judges at a higher plain, have demonstrated a consistent view...a GREAT WALL so to speak which lower court rulings, and plaintiff's must understand, that they will also have to overcome. Sure...you get some verdicts favorable to the plaintiff in the lower court. Result, initial headlines, and celebrations, and the California effect "we will get them...those bad...evil tobacco people....". But, in a continuing consistent ruling at the higher level. Upon appeal, the verdicts are thrown out, or reversed, etc.... This is not an accident. It is not the first time a higher court has written, that "just because a defendent is unpopular, the rule of law still applies" ! And that is point which all tobacco investors should take heart, and use as one of the more powerful points favoring a very large investment. I have said before, that this is the most important point which prompted me to personally change the course of my entire portfolio and the other portfolios (maybe about two years ago) into Philip Morris. (...I admit that I am biased...but my view is well known on the thread...obviously I also applaud the Appeals court ruling) I am interested in the Baltimre case now being held re: Guatemala suing tobacco...a much more important implication than the Eagle case , also, ...imho ) So...why do lawyers continue to bring suit when they see there initial wins over turned upon appeal. Or why do class action suits continue. MY answer... beats the h... out of me. ! I have no idea. Greed is a major component here. Summary...go back say two years...the Pennsylvania court case... or the Illinois case last year. Iowa. etc.... The Federal higher courts are consistent. And the important thing, is that YOU CAN EXPECT CONSISTENCY at the higher court level. That consistency is the important thing. So...in the big picture. When you see a victory , by a plaintiff, at the lower court. Don't spend that money just, yet. You still have another much more difficult Wall to climb. dk