N.D. Ohio· 7/7/1998

Hollar v. Philip Morris Inc.

Citations

43 F. Supp. 2d 794
1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21764
1998 WL 1032626

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).

Judges: Nugent

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

36 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.