R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Smith
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1Concurrence
WETHERELL, J.,
specially concurring.
Appellant raised six issues in this Engle1 progeny appeal, four of which are merit-less. The other two issues — which challenge the excessiveness of the compensatory and punitive damage awards — have merit in my view, but are foreclosed by this court’s decision in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. Townsend.2 Accordingly, despite my continued disagreement with Townsend, I am duty-bound to concur in the decision affirming the judgment in this case.
With respect to the compensatory damages, I agree with Appellant that the evi-dentiary basis for an eight-figure…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc.Supreme Court of Florida · 2006
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. TownsendDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2012
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. WebbDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2012
- Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. AlexanderDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2013
- Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. NaugleDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2012
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.