Limitations regarding the use of quotes
The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
Plaintiffs, non-smoking inmates located at a correctional institution in Pennsylvania, filed suit against several major tobacco companies stemming from their involuntary exposure to environmental tobacco smoke ("ETS") while incarcerated, under the theory that the ETS was cause by products marketed and manufactured by Defendants. In this order, the Court responded to several procedural motions without addressing any factual allegations or any of the merits of the suit. The Court noted that the Plaintiffs, all pro-se litigants, failed to make essential assertions regarding venue and also noted that it is forbidden for the Court to certify a class of pro-se litigants, the Court dismissed the case as moot and denied class certification without prejudice.
However, the Court also noted that ETS litigation requires many fact-specific determinations, and thus granted the Plaintiff's Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint, and "[held] in abeyance the Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Council pending the resolution of the venue question," suggesting that it seemed likely that the proper venue would be in the Pennsylvania district where the facility was located.