A frequent theory seen in tobacco litigation is the concept that manufacturers could have introduced an uninhaleable nicotine- and tar-free cigarette that tasted repellent and no one would have wanted to buy, and therefore all cigarettes sold are "defective." Steven L. Vollins writes for WLF about two New York cases coming to opposite conclusions on the matter. The more sensible of the two, Mulholland v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., No. 05 Civ. 9908 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2007), noted that the �vast majority of courts have been markedly unreceptive to the call that they displace markets, legislatures, and governmental agencies by decreeing whole categories of products to be �outlaws.��
Wacky Tobacco
Related Entries:
- Around the web, January 27
- Breaking: SCOTUS denies cert in Philip Morris USA v. Jackson
- No jackpot justice in Escambia County tobacco suit
- SCOTUS denies cert in Compact Clause challenge to tobacco MSA
- Around the web, December 29
- Around the web, November 18
- CEI cert petition challenging tobacco settlement
- SCOTUS to rule on due process in class actions?
- NPR lists Kagan's credentials; other nomination controversies
- "Suing the Tobacco and Lead Pigment Industry: Government Litigation as Public Health Prescription"
- Engel progeny cases in Florida
- Amicus brief in tobacco-RICO case
- Discovery and tobacco historians
- Florida Smoker's $300 Million Award to Be Reduced
- Smoking bans and overnight cardiac improvements
![]() |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
![]() |
| Bridget Carroll Press Officer, Manhattan Institute bcarroll@manhattan-institute.org |



