Walker Ex Rel. Estate of Walker v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• analyzing the constitutionality of giving preclusive effect to the \approved findings from Phase I\ without distinguishing the negligence and strict-liability claims from the concealment and conspiracy claims
• “[T]he [Phase I] jury did not decide whether the tobacco companies were liable for damages to individual members of the class.”
• “[T]he [Phase I] jury did not decide whether the tobacco companies were liable for damages to individual members of the class.”
• The defendants “requested that the trial court submit to the jury a ... detailed verdict form that would ... ask[ ] the jury [among other things] to identify the brands of cigarettes that were defective.”
• The defendants “requested that the trial court submit to the jury a . . . detailed verdict form that would . . . ask[] the jury [among other things] to identify the brands of cigarettes that were defective.”
• “The Florida Supreme Court rejected [the] argument” that “the jury did not necessarily find that all cigarettes the defendants placed on 236 Case: 13-14590 Date Filed: 05/18/2017 Page: 237 of 284 the market were defective and unreasonably dangerous.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).