Legal Opinion · Concurrence

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Smith

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 20, 2013No. 1D12-2778Published

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

  1. Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc.Supreme Court of Florida · 2006
  2. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. TownsendDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2012
  3. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. WebbDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2012
  4. Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. AlexanderDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2013
  5. Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. NaugleDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2012

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API