Hollar v. Philip Morris Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that claims of active misrepresentation implicate a broader “duty not to deceive” and are thus not product liability claims barred by the OPLA
• dismissing two plaintiffs’ product liability claims, who began smoking in 1968 and 1971 respectively
• dismissing two plaintiffs’ product liability claims, who began smoking in 1968 and 1971 respectively, because “[t]he case law is well settled that the health hazards of smoking were within the ordinary citizen’s common knowledge at that time”
• dismissing two plaintiffs’ product liability claims, who began smoking in 1968 and 1971 respectively, because “[t]he case law is well settled that the health hazards of smoking were within the ordinary citizen’s ‘common knowledge’ ” at that time
• common law fraud claim is based primarily on defendant's breach of its alleged duty not to deceive and is not limited to a product liability claim
• common law fraud claim is based primarily on defendant's breach of its alleged duty not to deceive and is not limited to a product liability claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).