PRINCE

v.

STATE

Citator

Cited By (14 total)

• Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas, 110 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 2013)
  …an Engle class member makes this showing, injury as a result of the Engle defendants’ conduct is assumed based on the Phase I common liability findings. See R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin, 53 So. 3d 1060, 1069 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), rev. denied, 67 So. 3d 1050 (Fla.2011), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 1794, 182 L.Ed.2d 617 (2012) (“individual class plaintiffs, when pursuing [the Engle ] defendants for damages, can rely on the Phase I jury’s factual findings [to] establish the conduct elements of the a…
• R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Earline Alexander, 90 So. 3d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
  …on. . Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla.2006). . Punitive damages are not typically subject to apportionment based on comparative fault, see R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin, 53 So. 3d 1060, 1066 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), rev. den., 67 So. 3d 1050 (Fla.2011), but the record indicates that Appellee consented to the trial court's reduction of the punitive damage award to $40.8 million. Nothing in the record suggests that the trial court ordered the reduction because it found the $80 million awa…

  ← 1 / 4 →
• R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Diane Webb for the Estate of James Cayce Horner, 93 So. 3d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
  …ed to establish her father’s reliance on RJR’s (mis)statements and omissions concerning the effects smoking tobacco can have on smokers’ health. Here as in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin, 53 So. 3d 1060, 1069 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), review denied, 67 So. 3d 1050 (Fla.2011), “the record contains abundant evidence from which the jury could infer [Mr. Hor-ner’s] reliance on pervasive misleading advertising campaigns ... and on the false controversy created by the tobacco industry during the years he smoked aim…

  ← 1 / 2 →