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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT