Service Employees International Union Health & Welfare Fund 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.

• noting that \specific intent to harm the plaintiffs by shifting smoking-related health care costs to them is alone insufficient to overcome the bar on remote claims\
• rejecting section 323 liability based on similar statements made by cigarette manufacturers to the general public, ruling such statements “must be made directly to the [smoker], not to the general public through advertisements”
• acknowledging, in dictum, that “individual smokers” could “perhaps” bring civil RICO claims under § 1964(c) “to the extent they can prove a measure of damages distinct from personal injuries”
• smokers had more direct claims and can be counted on to deter wrongdoing by asserting their theories of recover
• plaintiffs’ alleged [fraud and RICO] injuries were too remote to be proximately caused by alleged conduct of tobacco companies
• “[T]he doctrine of parens patriae is merely a species of prudential standing.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).