Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
- Decided
- June 24, 1992
- Docket
- 90-1038
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,631 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that state requirement under Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969 preemption provision encompasses common law causes of action — Barbara MITCHELL and Gregory Mitchell, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COLLAGEN CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee (1997)
- holding that the preemptive effect of a federal act is “governed entirely” by an express preemption provision — Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. BOLI OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES (2010)
- holding that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act did not preempt state law damages actions — Yanise Germain v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc (2014)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*508] Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Parts V and VI.
“Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined That Cigarette Smoking Is Dangerous to Your Health.” A federal statute enacted in 1969 requires that warning (or a variation thereof) to appear in a conspicuous place on every package of cigarettes sold in the United States.[1] The questions presented to us by this case are whether that statute, or its 1965 predecessor which required a less alarming label, pre-empted petitioner’s common-law claims against respondent cigarette manufacturers.
Petitioner is the son of Rose Cipollone, who began smoking in 1942 and who died of lung cancer in 1984. He claims that respondents are responsible for Rose Cipollone’s death because they breached express warranties contained in their advertising, because they failed to warn consumers about the hazards of smoking, because they fraudulently misrepresented those hazards to consumers, and because they conspired to deprive the public of medical and scientific information about smoking. The Court of Appeals held that petitioner’s state-law claims were pre-empted by federal statutes, 893 F. 2d 541 (CA3 1990), and other courts have agreed with that analysis.[2] The highest court of the State of New Jersey, however, has held that the federal statutes [*509] did not pre-empt similar common-law claims.[3] Because of the manifest importance of the issue, we granted certiorari to resolve the conflict, 499 U. S. 935 (1991). We now reverse in part and affirm in part.
Statutes cited
- 28 U.S.C. § 1292
- 15 U.S.C. § 4406
- 16 U.S.C. § 1331
- 15 U.S.C. § 1331
- 15 U.S.C. § 4401
- 29 U.S.C. § 1144
- 12 U.S.C. § 1716z-17
- 17 U.S.C. § 301
Cite this
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.