Price v. Philip Morris, Inc.

Plaintiffs petitioned for rehearing in this case. Because I believe that this court’s judgment may have been erroneous, I dissent from the denial of the petition for rehearing.

I

As a preliminary matter, plaintiffs correctly question the precedential value of this court’s decision. Plaintiffs observe that no rationale in the December 15, 2005, judgment received a majority of votes. In other words, there was no holding by a majority opinion—except for the disposition of the cause, i.e., four justices voted for reversal.

Justice Garman’s opinion, holding that PMUSA’s conduct was exempt under…