Nobody downloaded yet

Philip Morris USA v. Williams. Brief facts - Case Study Example

Comments (0) Cite this document
Summary
The facts of this case are that Williams who was the widow of a man who was a chain smoker for last four decades, smoking three packs of cigarettes daily and eventually died due to lung cancer in the year 1997 at a age of 55 years, she brought a suit against the tobacco major Philips Morris for misling her husband in particular and thousands like him in general to smoke their brand of cigarettes through attractive sales and marketing campaigns…
Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER93.8% of users find it useful
Philip Morris USA v. Williams. Brief facts
Read TextPreview

Extract of sample "Philip Morris USA v. Williams. Brief facts"

Download file to see previous pages At initial trial the jury awarded her $821,485.50 as compensatory damages and $79.5 million as punitive damages in the case. However, the trial court on an appeal reduced the amounts to $521,485.50 and $32 million respectively. On an reverse appeal the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the trial courts decision and upheld the earlier amount awarded by the jury as compensation. The Supreme Court of United States granted certiorari in the case, vacated the Court of Appeals judgment and sent back the case to the same court of appeal to reconsider the amount of punitive damages awarded in the case. In particular Supreme Court referring to the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment declined to grant punitive damages to individuals who were not part of litigation. In a third appeal before the Supreme Court by Philips Morris the court remanded the case back for re-trial.
The basic issues before the jury, trial court, court of appeal and the supreme court were varied. The Court had to decide that if compensatory and punitive damages are made out in the case and if they are maintainable and to be awarded then to what extent.
Ans. The basic jurisdiction in this lied till the Court of Appeal in the state of Oregon. ...
Ans. The case had been in the litigation process for ten years.
3. What is jurisdiction in relation to this case
Ans. The basic jurisdiction in this lied till the Court of Appeal in the state of Oregon. The deceased and the plaintiff belonged to that state. After that on further appeal and review petitions the case was tried by the Supreme Court of United States.
4. What is the relationship between the court system, litigation process, and jurisdiction
Ans. There is a threefold relationship between the court system, litigation process and jurisdiction. If we take the example of the present case then we see that the deceased and the Plaintiff(his wife) lived in the State of Oregon, so the jurisdiction of the district court lied in there case. Jurisdiction is of three types. Personal, Territorial and Subject matter. In this case the territorial jurisdiction was made out. The Court system is divided according to the jurisdiction of a State. First it's the trial Court of the State, then the Court of Appeal and further it can also be Supreme Court. The litigation process is said to be started from the trial Court and can go up to Supreme Court till the final decision has not been arrived at.

References
< www.findlaw.com >
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/03/AR2008120303377.html ...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(“Philip Morris USA v. Williams. Brief facts Case Study”, n.d.)
Philip Morris USA v. Williams. Brief facts Case Study. Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/miscellaneous/1530116-philip-morris-usa-v-williams-brief-facts
(Philip Morris USA V. Williams. Brief Facts Case Study)
Philip Morris USA V. Williams. Brief Facts Case Study. https://studentshare.org/miscellaneous/1530116-philip-morris-usa-v-williams-brief-facts.
“Philip Morris USA V. Williams. Brief Facts Case Study”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/miscellaneous/1530116-philip-morris-usa-v-williams-brief-facts.
  • Cited: 0 times
Comments (0)
Click to create a comment or rate a document

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF Philip Morris USA v. Williams. Brief facts

Case Brief : Terry v. Ohio

...followed by the ratio decidendi as laid down by the hon’ble Supreme Court. This Case Brief also aims at answering some of the following questions: 1. Were Terry and the other men in violation of the Fourth Amendment? 2. What was the position of law before Terry v. Ohio? 3. What analysis did the court make in delivering the judgment? 4. What are the future effects of this Case on policing and law enforcement? Case Brief Factual Matrix In the instant case, the Petitioner sought a review of the judgment passed by the Ohio Supreme Court which affirmed the Petitioner’s Conviction in the lower Court for carrying a concealed weapon. The facts in brief are as...
4 Pages(1000 words)Case Study

Case Brief: Wyeth v. Levine

...? Case Brief: Wyeth v. Levine Table of Contents I. Facts 3 II. Issue 4 III. Decision 4 IV. Reasons 5 References 8 I. Facts Wyeth markets the drug Phenergan, the generic name of which is promethazine hydrochloride, which is indicated for nausea, as an antihistamine medication. In its injectable form, it can be administered either as a drip, known as an IV-drip, or as a vein-injectable, in a procedure known as an IV-push. It is known that Phenergan can cause gangrene when it is able to get into the artery of a patient, because of its corrosive nature. Such is the case with the plaintiff Levine in this case, whose right hand and later the whole forearm was amputated...
3 Pages(750 words)Essay

Terry v. Ohio Case Brief

...?Terry v. Ohio Case Brief The short of Terry v. Ohio can be explained as the U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the 4th amendment prohibition pertaining to unreasonable search and seizures. The decision of the court states that the 4th Amendment right is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect in the street and proceeds to frisk him even though there is no visible probably cause to arrest the person. Rather, the act of the police officer is done upon his or her suspicion that a crime may be undertaken because of a sense or reasonable belief that the person in question may be armed and presently dangerous. This was the decision that the courts reached when they read the...
3 Pages(750 words)Case Study

R. Williams Construction Co. v. OSHRC

...? WILLIAMS CONSTRUCTION CO. V. OSHRC Introduction The case anchors on the laws and policies of OSHRC – an occupations Health and Security Regulation. The act aims to guarantee employees safety and security while at work. The regulations in the act are implemented to aid reduce the percentage of workstation deaths and injuries. In the Williams construction industry case, the company was subjected to some investigations following the collapse of a trench that caused the death of one worker and acute injuries of another employee. After a serious investigation, the company was charged with some Occupational Safety and Health offences, which lead to expensive penalties. Discussion The paper...
4 Pages(1000 words)Research Paper

Complete case brief of Nix v. Williams

...Case brief of Nix v. Williams Facts The defendant, Mr. Williams was apprehended and his rights regarding the murder of the child were read to him – after giving information that led law enforcement personnel to the recovery of the body of the victim. The officer that collected the information from him had passed it to officials that had been continuing the search. The statements made by Williams were not admissible as evidence at the court during a trial, but the recovered body, the information from chemical and medical tests, and photographic information were admitted as evidence against him. During the trial of...
4 Pages(1000 words)Case Study

Philip Morris Co

...Millers brews contain addictive components that retain a craving or the product in the consumer which increases as does the consumption. Tobacco products are generally addictive in terms of tobacco addiction which can be fulfilled by any brand, but when it comes to addiction with a Philip Morris product, only that product will fulfill the desire. Supports FDA Regulation "Philip Morris USA is the only U.S. tobacco company that supports meaningful and effective regulation of tobacco products by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)." This fact gives Philip Morris a competitive edge over its...
13 Pages(3250 words)Case Study

Case Brief - McGurn v Bell

...Case Brief RE: McGurn v. Bell Microproducts, Inc. Facts George McGurn met with the president of the Bell microproducts who gave the position of the company. At that meeting, gave a condition that for him to take the employment offer by Bell, he should be issued with a contract in the written form inclusive a termination clause specifying that in case his contract was terminated he will be given half his commissions plus six months’ salary. Following several discussions with an official from Bell, Bell issued him with a contract devoid of the termination clause which he rejected. During one of these discussions, McGurn said that a termination clause covering his initial twenty four months...
2 Pages(500 words)Essay

Case Brief U.S v. Hinkley

...Case Brief U.S Vs Hinkley Facts On March 30, 1981, a man d John W. Hinckley Junior shot the then US President Ronald Reagan in an attempt to assassinate him. During the process, he hit and wounded four people who were present on the scene: President Reagan, the Presidential Press Secretary, a Secret Service Agent and a Metropolitan Police Officer. Hickley was immediately arrested and subsequently faced trial for prosecution in the Legal Court of the Columbia district of the USA. Hinckley’s lawyers argued that he was suffering from schizophrenia and his actions were a result of his impaired mind. The defense attorneys also presented medical evidence in the Court which supported their...
2 Pages(500 words)Essay

Phillip Morris

...Legal and regulatory forces Task: Legal and regulatory forces Legal and regulatory forces affects the market of tobacco because illicit cigarettes enter the market and their sale violates the fiscal law, custom law and other regulations such as evading payment of import duties, and compliance to regulatory measures. The sale of these cigarettes does not entail payment of the relevant taxes. Moreover, there is prevalence of fake cigarettes manufactured without authorization of the brand owner. Phillip has taken some measures to curb illegal sale of cigarettes (Philip Morris International, 2012). This is by supporting stern regulations and enforcement measures to address illicit trade such as tracking,...
1 Pages(250 words)Assignment

Altria Group Inc. (MO) and Philip Morris International, Inc. (PM)

...Altria Group Inc. (MO) and Philip Morris International, Inc. (PM) Altria Group Inc Altria Group Inc. is one of the leading tobacco companies in the world. It is a multinational corporation based in Henrico County, Virginia in United States. Since its inception the company has been able to acquire several other companies with the aim of diversifying its operations and improving its competitive advantage in the market. For instance, in 2009, the firm acquired UST Inc, which is a smokeless manufacturer (Freudenberg 69). The company was created from Philip Morris Companies Inc. This was meant to expand the market base to different parts of the country. Over the years, the...
2 Pages(500 words)Essay
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.

Let us find you another Case Study on topic Philip Morris USA v. Williams. Brief facts for FREE!

Contact Us