Rhonda K. Wood

Name: Philip Morris Companies, Inc. v. Miner
Author: Rhonda K. Wood

Philip Morris Companies, Inc. v… (2015)

Summary

“Philip Morris Companies, Inc. v. Miner”, published in 2015, is a work by Rhonda K. Wood. It explores elements such as Philip Morris, individual issues and predominance.

Quotes from Philip Morris Companies, Inc. v… (Rhonda K. Wood)

Rhonda K. Wood, Philip Morris Companies, Inc. v… (2015)

“ In the instant matter, Philip Morris maintains that each element of plaintiffs' ADTPA claim—misrepresentation, causation, and damages—contains overriding individual issues that destroy predominance. First, Philip Morris argues that misrepresentation is an inherently individual issue because whether its representations on its Lights cigarettes were false depends on each class member's smoking habit. Second, it argues that proof of causation requires proof of reliance, and since each buyer bought Lights for different reasons, these individual reasons destroy predominance. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Rhonda K. Wood, Philip Morris Companies, Inc. v… (2015)

“ Where a cohesive and manageable class exists, we have held that real efficiency can be had if common, predominating questions of law or fact are first decided, with cases then splintering for the trial of individual issues, if necessary. Id. This court has further stated that when a circuit court is determining whether class-action status is the superior method for adjudication of a matter, it may be necessary for the circuit court to evaluate the manageability of the class. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Rhonda K. Wood, Philip Morris Companies, Inc. v… (2015)

“ But the existence of damages, at least for some plaintiffs, will depend on whether Philip Morris misrepresented its product. So the individualized inquiry regarding damages will not destroy predominance: " [T] he mere fact that individual issues and defenses may be raised by the defendant regarding the recovery of individual class members cannot defeat class certification where there are common questions concerning the defendant's alleged wrongdoing that must be resolved for all class members." ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Rhonda K. Wood, Philip Morris Companies, Inc. v… (2015)

“ Class certification is proper if six, rule-based prerequisites are satisfied. Two of those prerequisites are at issue in this case: predominance and superiority. Another issue is whether the class is ascertainable. Here, the class plaintiffs alleged that Philip Morris deceived them by advertising Marlboro Lights as being safer and having less tar and nicotine than other cigarettes. The circuit court certified the plaintiffs' class action against Philip Morris based on the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act; Philip Morris appeals the class certification. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Rhonda K. Wood, Philip Morris Companies, Inc. v… (2015)

“ In terms of manageability, the superiority requirement is closely related to predominance, as the presence of central individual issues makes class-action management more difficult. Newbern, supra, § 8:6.
The class-action mechanism is a superior method to adjudicate the overarching, predominant issue of Philip Morris's misrepresentation regarding Lights cigarettes. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Rhonda K. Wood, Philip Morris Companies, Inc. v… (2015)

“ Plaintiffs respond that consumers can prove their class membership in other ways, for example, by an affidavit or through testimony. We agree with the plaintiffs. There is no receipt requirement in order to join a class action. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Rhonda K. Wood, Philip Morris Companies, Inc. v… (2015)

“ By contrast, those who would have quit smoking altogether could recover their expenses in purchasing Lights. And those who would have continued to smoke, but in greater moderation, could recover something in between. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Rhonda K. Wood, Philip Morris Companies, Inc. v… (2015)

“ Furthermore, Philip Morris maintains that even if plaintiffs need not prove reliance, the same problem exists for the causation element.
The relevant statute reads as follows: Any person who suffers actual damage or injury as a result of an offense or violation as defined in the ADTPA has a cause of action to recover actual damages. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Rhonda K. Wood, Philip Morris Companies, Inc. v… (2015)

“ When reviewing a class-certification order, we focus on the evidence contained in the record to determine whether it supports the circuit court's conclusion regarding certification. Asbury Auto. Grp., Inc. v. Palasack, 366 Ark. 601, 237 S.W.3d 462 (2006) . Our focus is "whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met" and "it is totally immaterial whether the petition will succeed on the merits or even if it states a cause of action." Am. ”

Rhonda K. Wood

Summary

Quotes from Philip Morris Companies, Inc. v… (Rhonda K. Wood)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature