Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Hines

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that FDUTPA claim could not be litigated as class action where amount of damages depended on manner in which individual consumer used the product
• concluding that FDUTPA claim could not be litigated as class action where amount of damages depended on manner in which individual consumer used the product
• explaining that “we question whether Davis gives fair consideration to the principle of causation within section 501.211(2)____”
• applying standard and finding personal smoking behavior too individualized and inquiry for common questions to predominate
• explaining, in the context of decertifying class action under FDUTPA, that whether a smoker was damaged by deceptive advertising for “light” cigarettes depended on why the “light” cigarettes were chosen by the particular smoker
• common issues did not predominate over individual issue of whether each plaintiff actually bought “light” cigarettes for the allegedly deceptive health-related claims

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).