ILNews

Court explores definition of tobacco manufacturing

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
 

The Indiana Court of Appeals today delved into what it means to manufacture cigarettes under state law.

A unanimous 30-page decision came in Steve Carter in his role as Attorney General v. Carolina Tobacco Company, Inc. http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/09170702jgb.pdf,No. 49A04-0503-CV-151, affirming a lower court decision that the state attorney general's office improperly refused to include an Indiana tobacco company in a yearly directory of manufacturers allowed to sell cigarettes in the state.

The Marion County suit involves the "Roger" brand of cigarettes that began being distributed in the mid-1990s in Eastern Europe, but came to the United States in August 1999 with the creation of Oregon-based CTC - though the company's registered agency for service of proof is Indianapolis. These cigarettes were produced outside the country and then distributed by CTC here, and the Indiana Department of Revenue determined that Roger brand sales from 1999 to 2002 amounted to about 283 million cigarettes sold in the state.

But based on the tobacco settlement agreements in the late 1990s, certain manufacturers were included on a list compiled by state attorney general offices and CTC was not included. Both sides debated whether state statutes adequately defined "manufacture," and Carter's office equated the term "manufacture" with "fabricate" - only an entity physically assembling or fabricating cigarettes could be dubbed a tobacco product manufacturer and included on the list.

CTC debated this interpretation for the 2003 list, and eventually sued for not being included. Marion Circuit Judge Ted Sosin granted a preliminary injunction against the attorney general's office from enforcing the rules that would mean pulling Roger brand cigarettes from sales locations.

"Based on the factual evidence in this case, the Court concludes that, at all times since its founding in 1999, CTC has directly manufactured Roger cigarettes," Judge Sosin found as a conclusion of law. "The Court, therefore, concludes that CTC has been and continues to be the tobacco product manufacturer of Roger cigarettes."

On appeal, Chief Judge John Baker and Judges Mark Bailey and Nancy Vaidik determined the court did not err in ruling against the attorney general's office. It noted that other Indiana statutes are more broadly interpreted, citing Indiana's product liability statute that defines manufacturer as a "person or entity who designs, assembles, fabricates, produces, constructs, or otherwise prepares a product or a component part of a product before the sale of the product to a user or consumer."

"In our view, the totality of the evidence presented at trial establishes that OAG's decision to equate 'manufacture' with 'fabricate' for purposes of considering CTC's request for inclusion in the Directory was arbitrary and, therefore, unreasonable," Chief Judge Baker wrote. "Therefore, the trial court's determination... was proper."
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT