Make your own free website on Tripod.com
LRA's and ALR's
Case Lists
on
Tobacco Issues and Subjects

(With Case Precedents In Sequence of Listing)

Index by Decade
1890's 1900's 1910's 1920's 1930's
1940's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's

1. Misrepresentation As Affecting Validity of Trademark, 19 LRA 52 (1893)

    Joseph v Macowsky, 96 Cal 518; 31 P 914 (30 Nov 1892)
    Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co v Reid Tobacco Co, 104 Mo 53; 24 Am St Rep 314 (Oct 1890)

2. Protection of Cigar Makers' Trade Union Labels or Trademarks, 29 LRA 200 (1896)

    State v Bishop, 128 Mo 212; 31 SW 9; 49 Am St Rep 569; 29 LRA 200 (12 May 1895)
    Cigar Makers Protective Union No 98 v Conley, 40 Minn 243; 3 LRA 125 (11 March 1889), p 200 (L)
    Weener v Brayton, 152 Mass 101; 8 LRA 640 (24 June 1890), p 200
    McVey v Brendel, 144 Pa 235; 13 LRA 377 (5 Oct 1891), p 200
    Schneider v Williams, 44 NJ Eq 391, p 200 (L)
    Carson v Ury, 39 F 777; 5 LRA 614 (CA Mo, 2 Sep 1889), p 200
    Bloete v Simon, 19 Abb NC 88 (NY, May 1887), p 200
    Strasser v Moonelis, 23 Jones & S 197 app dism 11 Cent Rep 461; 108 NY 611 (6 March 1888), p 201
    Moe v Alter (Ohio CP, Lucas County), CMOJ (Feb 1888) p 201
    Reukert v Bamberger (Ohio CP, Hamilton County), CMOJ (April 1887), p 202
    Todd v Brenner (Chancery Div, Toronto), CMOJ (March 1891), p 202
    Cigar Makers Union No 1 of Baltimore v Link (Baltimore C Ct), CMOJ (Nov 1886), p 202
    Maher v Iowa Fruit & Produce Co, (Dist Ct, Polk County) CMOJ (April 1891), p 204
    Hudson v Bed-Rock Cigar Co (Circuit Ct, Kansas) CMOJ (June 1887), p 205
    Meyer v Haak (Scott County Dist Ct, Iowa), CMOJ (Feb 1889), p 205
    Perkins v Roddel (Buffalo Super Ct), CMOJ (Sep 1894), p 205
    Gailbreath v Phillipson (Dallas County, Tex), CMOJ (April 1891), p 205

3. Right of State to Confiscate Cigarettes Imported for Personal Use, 4 LNS 528 (1906)

    State of Indiana v Lowry, 166 Ind 372; 77 NE 728; 9 Ann Cas 350 (26 April 1906) (re 2-28-1905 ban on cigarette manufacture, sales, and giveaway)

4. Sufficiency of Identity of Part of Larger Lot of Tobacco Sold, 26 LNS 32 (1910)

    Adam Roth Grocer Co v Lewis, 69 Mo App 446 (23 Feb 1897) (title did not pass when not identified)
    Dixon v Myers & Co, 48 Va (7 Grat) 240 (Jan 1851) (tobacco stems bought by purchaser but not set aside, when warehouse fire occurred, liability remained with seller as title had not yet passed to the buyer, while the stems remained in the collective whole)

5. Constitutionality of Laws Prohibiting Carrying on of Employments or Occupations Upon Certain Premises, 44 LNS 46 (1913)

    Matter of Jacobs, 33 Hun 374; 2 NY Cr 346 (Oct 1884) aff'd 2 NY Cr 539; 98 NY 98; 50 Am Rep 636 (20 Jan 1885) (issue of banning cigarette manufacture in tenements)

6. Prohibition or Regulation of the Manufacture, Sale, or Importation of Cigarettes, 51 LNS 562 (1914)

    City of Zion v Behrens, 262 Ill 510; 104 NE 836; 51 LNS 562 (21 Feb 1914)
    State v Heidenhain, 42 La Ann 483; 7 So 621; 21 Am St Rep 388 (21 April 1890) (second hand smoke (TTS) ban case pursuant to tobacco's then-known adverse effects, to protect in public travel, the right to fresh and pure air), p 562
    Hershberg v City of Barbourville, 142 Ky 60; 133 SW 985; 34 LNS 141; Ann Cas 1912D, 189 (3 Feb 1911)
    Commonwealth of Massachusetts v Thompson, 53 Mass (12 Metc) 231 (March 1847) (outdoor smoking case; outdoor smoking banned due to foreseeability of fires), p 563
    Dempsey v Stout, 76 Neb 152; 107 NW 235 (22 March 1906)
    State of Indiana v Lowry, 166 Ind 372; 77 NE 728; 9 Ann Cas 350 (26 April 1906) (re 2-28-1905 ban on cigarette manufacture, sales, and giveaway)
    [For background, see, e.g,
  • Howard E. Ayer, M.S., David W. Yeager, B.S., “Irritants in Cigarette Smoke Plumes,” 72 Am J Pub Health (#11) p 1283 (Nov 1982)
  • James Repace, "Banning outdoor smoking is scientifically justifiable" 9 Tobacco Control (#1) p 98 (Spring 2000)
  • Michelle Bloch and Donald R. Shopland, "Outdoor smoking bans: more than meets the eye," 9 Tobacco Control (#1) p 99 (Spring 2000).]

7. Effect on Rights of Innocent Persons of Confiscation of Tobacco Under Internal Revenue Laws, LRA 1916E, 353 (1916)

    U.S. v Two-hundred Twenty Patented Machines, 99 F 559 (ED Pa, 5 Feb 1900) (the innocent take the risk if the cigar manufacturer violates the law)
    U.S. v 246˝ Pounds of Tobacco, 103 F 791 (ND Wash, 14 Aug 1900)

8. Tobacco As A Family Expense or Necessary Within Statute Rendering Wife or Her Property Liable Therefor, LRA 1917F, 863 (1917)

    Bradley v Murray, 66 Alabama 269 (Dec 1880) ("Pipes, tobacco, and cigars are not necessaries.")
    O'Neil v Cardinia, 159 Iowa 78; 140 NW 196; 44 LNS 1175 (1912) (beer, likewise not)

9. Prohibition or Regulation of the Manufacture, Sale, or Importation of Cigarettes, LRA 1918B, 988 (1918)

    Zion v Behrens, 262 Ill 510; 104 NE 836; 51 LNS 562 (21 Feb 1914)
    State v Olson, 26 ND 304; 144 NW 661; LRA 1918B, 975 (29 Nov 1913) app dism 245 US 676; 38 S Ct 13; 62 L Ed 542 (17 Oct 1917) (snuff rules, referencing concern of adulteration of tobacco by adding opium)
    Austin v State, 101 Tenn 563; 48 SW 305; 50 LRA 478; 70 Am St Rep 703 (22 Dec 1898) aff'd 179 US 343; 21 S Ct 132; 45 L Ed 224 (19 Nov 1900) upholding Tennessee's cigarette sales ban due to tobacco hazardessness and addictiveness
    In re May, 82 F 422 (D Montana, 5 Aug 1897) (upheld $10 license fee for cigarette sellers)
    Cook v Marshall County, 119 Iowa 384; 93 NW 372; 104 Am St Rep 283 (2 Feb 1903) aff'd 196 US 261; 25 S Ct 233; 49 L Ed 471 (16 Jan 1905) (preemption issue in tax case)
    State v Sbragia, 138 Wis 579; 119 NW 290; 23 LNS 697 (26 Jan 1909) (case noted for State Attorney General accepting the discredited tobaccoist's view point in terms of supporting illegal cigarette sales, an early indication of more corruption to come!)
    United Cigar Stores v Stewart, 144 Ga 724; 87 SE 1034 (1916) (issue of $200 license fee to sell tobacco)
    Post Printing & Publishing Co v Brewster, Atty Gen of Kansas, 246 F 321 (D Kan, 8 Dec 1917)
    Delamater v South Dakota, 205 US 93; 27 S Ct 447; 51 L Ed 724; 10 Ann Cas 733 (1907)
    State ex rel Black v Delaye, 193 Ala 500; 68 So 993; LRA 1915, 640 (1915)
    Gundling v City of Chicago, 176 Ill 340; 52 NE 44; 48 LRA 230 (24 Oct 1898) aff'd 177 US 183; 20 S Ct 633; 44 L Ed 725 (9 April 1900) and "Medicolegal: Power to Regulate Sale of Cigarettes," 35 J Am Med Ass'n 298-299 (4 Aug 1900)
    Re Minor, 5 Inters Com Rep 329; 69 F 233 (W Va, 10 July 1895)
    Iowa v McGregor, 76 F 956 (ND Iowa, 23 July 1896)
    McGregor v Cone, 104 Iowa 465; 73 NW 1041; 65 Am St Rep 522; 39 LRA 484 (24 Jan 1898)
    State v Goetze, 43 W Va 495; 27 SE 225; 64 Am St Rep 871 (24 April 1897)
    Sawrie v Tennessee, 82 F 615 (MD Tenn, 30 Sep 1897)
    Blaufield v State, 103 Tenn 593; 53 SW 1090 (20 Nov 1899)).
    State v Maire, 66 Wash 591; 120 P 87; 39 LNS 1051 (15 Jan 1912)

10. Workmen's Compensation: Compensation to Workmen Injured Through Smoking, 5 ALR 1521 (1920) (See worker compensation cases).

    Whiting-Mead Commercial Co v Industrial Accident Com'n, 178 Cal 505; 173 P 1105 (3 July 1918)
    Rish v Iowa Portland Cement Co, 186 Iowa 443; 170 NW 532 (23 Jan 1919)
    M'Lauchlan v Anderson, 1 Scot Law Times 127; 48 Sc L Rep 349; 4 SWCC 376 (1 Feb 1910)
    Dzikowska v Superior Steel Co, 65 PLJ 502; 31 York 67 (23 April 1917) aff'd 259 Pa 578; 103 A 351 (7 Jan 1918)
    Haller v City of Lansing, 195 Mich 753; 162 NW 335; LRA 1917E, 324 (9 April 1917)
    Manson v Forth & Clyde S. S. Co, 50 Scot L R 687; 6 BWCC 830
    Chludzinski v Standard Oil Co, 176 App Div 87; 162 NYS 225 (28 Dec 1916)
    In re Betts, 66 Ind App 484, 486; 118 NE 551, 552 (18 Jan 1918)

11. Annotation: Nuisance Resulting from Smoke Alone as Subject for Injunctive Relief, 6 ALR 1574 (1920) (Details)

    Sampson v Smith, 8 Sim 272; 59 Eng Rep 108; 7 L J Ch N S 260; 2 Jur 563 (England, 1838)
    Cartwright v Gray, 12 Grant, Ch (UC) 400 (Canada, 1866)
    Crump v Lambert, L R 3 Eq 409; 15 Weekly Rep 417 (England, 1867)
    Galbraith v Oliver, 3 Pittsb 78, 79; 14 PLJ 565 (Pennsylvania, 1867)
    Ross v Butler, 19 NJ Eq 294; 97 Am Dec 654 (New Jersey, 1868)
    Bareham v Hall, 22 LTNS 116 (Eng, 1870)
    Saville v Kilner, 26 LTNS 277 (Eng, 1872)
    Hyatt v Myers, 71 NC 271 (NC, 1874)
    Hutchins v Smith, 63 Barb Sup Ct Rep 252 (NY, 1872)
    Daniels v Keokuk Waterworks, 61 Iowa 549; 16 NW 705 (1883)
    Rouse v Martin, 75 Alabama 510; 51 Am Rep 463 (Ala, 1883)
    Beir v Cooke, 44 NY Sup Ct Rep (37 Hun) 38 (NY, June 1885)
    McKinney v McCullough, 17 Phila 395; 42 Phila Leg Int 414 (Pa, 1885)
    Cogswell v New York, N. H. & H. R. Co, 103 NY 10; 8 NE 537; 57 Am Rep 701 (1886)
    Abendroth v Manhattan R Co, 19 Abb N C 247; 7 NYSR 43 (1887) aff'd 122 NY 1; 25 NE 496; 19 Am St Rep 461; 11 LRA 634 (NY, 1890)
    Catlin v Patterson, 10 NYSR 724 (NY, 1887)
    Sullivan v Royer, 72 Cal 248; 1 Am St Rep 51; 13 P 655 (Cal, 1887)
    McMorran v Fitzgerald, 106 Mich 649; 64 NW 569; 58 Am St Rep 511 (Mich, 1895)
    McClung v North Bend Coal & Coke Co, 9 Ohio CC 259; 6 Ohio C D 243 (Ohio, 1895)
    McCarty v Natural Carbonic Gas Co, 189 NY 40, 50; 81 NE 549, 551; 12 Ann Cas 840, 842; 13 LRA (NS) 465, 469 (NY, 4 June 1907)
    Melvin v E. B. & A. L. Stone Co, 7 Cal App 327; 94 P 390 (Cal App, 1908)
    Judson v Los Angeles Suburban Gas Co, 157 Cal 168; 106 P 581; 21 Ann Cas 1247; 26 LRA (NS) 183 (Cal, 1910)
    Bourne v Wilson-Case Lumber Co, 58 Oregon 48; 113 P 52; Ann Cas 1913A, 245 (Or, 1911)
    Lavner v Independent Light & Water Co, 74 Wash 373; 133 P 592 (Wash, 1913)
    Face v Cherry, 117 Va 41; 84 SE 10; Ann Cas 1917E, 418 (Va, 1915)
    Holman v Athens Empire Laundry, 149 Ga 345; 100 SE 207, 214; 6 ALR 1564, 1574-5 (Ga, 1919)

12. Liability of Master for Damage to Person or Property Due to Servant's Smoking, 13 ALR 997 (1921)

    Jefferson v Derbyshire Farmers, Ltd, [1920] All Eng 129; 2 KB 281; 13 ALR 989 (3 Feb 1921)
    Palmer v Keene Forestry Assn, 80 NH 68; 112 A 798 (1 Feb 1921)
    Williams v Jones 3 Hurlst & C 256; 159 Eng Rep 528 (Crt of Exchequer, 11 June 1864) aff'd 3 Hurlst & C 602; 159 Eng Rep 668 (Exchequer Chamber, 7 Feb 1865) (smoker on the job caused a fire due to employee smoking, employer is liable where the employee smoker purpose is for job purposes, but smoking is not necessary for performing job duties)
    Heard v Flannagan, 10 Victoria Law Rpts 1 (1884) (fire case)
    Eaton v Lancaster, 79 Me 477; 10 A 449 (29 June 1887) (fire case)

13. Constitutionality of Anti-Cigarette Legislation, 20 ALR 926 (1922) (See also related cases)

    State v Nossaman, 107 Kan 715; 193 P 347; 20 ALR 921 (6 Nov 1920) app dism 258 US 633; 42 S Ct 314; 66 L Ed 802 (20 March 1922)
    Austin v State, 101 Tenn 563; 48 SW 305; 50 LRA 478; 70 Am St Rep 703 (22 Dec 1898) aff'd 179 US 343; 21 S Ct 132; 45 L Ed 224 (19 Nov 1900) upholding Tennessee's cigarette sales ban due to tobacco hazardessness and addictiveness
    Gundling v City of Chicago, 176 Ill 340; 52 NE 44; 48 LRA 230 (24 Oct 1898) aff'd 177 US 183; 20 S Ct 633; 44 L Ed 725 (9 April 1900)
    Cook v Marshall County, 119 Iowa 384; 93 NW 372; 104 Am St Rep 283 (2 Feb 1903) aff'd 196 US 261; 25 S Ct 233; 49 L Ed 471 (16 Jan 1905) (preemption issue in tax case)
    Hodge v Muscatine County, 121 Iowa 482; 96 NW 968; 67 LRA 624; 104 Am St Rep 304 (22 Oct 1903) aff'd 196 US 276; 25 S Ct 237; 49 L Ed 477 (16 Jan 1905) (preemption issue in tax case)
    In re May, 82 F 422 (D Montana, 5 Aug 1897) (upheld $10 license fee for cigarette sellers)
    People ex rel. Berlizheimer v Busse, 231 Ill 251; 83 NE 175 (17 Dec 1907) (issue of cigarette ban)
    Kappes v Chicago, 119 Ill App 436 (27 March 1905) (upheld an ordinance requiring a license to be allowed to sell tobacco)
    McGregor v Cone, 104 Iowa 465; 73 NW 1041; 65 Am St Rep 522; 39 LRA 484 (24 Jan 1898)
    Alperson v Whalen, 74 Neb 680; 105 NW 474 (19 Oct 1905)
    People v Duke, 19 Misc 292; 44 NYS 336 (Jan 1897)
    Allen v State, 10 Okla Crim Rep 75; 133 P 1138 (26 July 1913)
    State v Sbragia, 138 Wis 579; 119 NW 290; 23 LNS 697 (26 Jan 1909) (case noted for State Attorney General accepting the discredited tobaccoist's view point in terms of supporting illegal cigarette sales, an early indication of more corruption to come!)

    The ALR continued by citing older court cases contrary to the Supreme Court's pro-health Austin v State of Tennessee decision, thus deemed overruled:
    Re Minor, 5 Inters Com Rep 329; 69 F 233 (W Va, 10 July 1895)
    Iowa v McGregor, 76 F 956 (ND Iowa, 23 July 1896)
    Sawrie v Tennessee, 82 F 615 (MD Tenn, 30 Sep 1897)
    State v Goetze, 43 W Va 495; 27 SE 225; 64 Am St Rep 871 (24 April 1897)
    Blaufield v State, 103 Tenn 593; 53 SW 1090 (20 Nov 1899)).

    The ALR continued by citing liquor cases, upholding advertising bans, State v J. P. Bass Pub Co, 104 Me 288; 71 A 894; 20 LRA (NS) 495 (15 July 1908); State ex rel. West v State Capitol Co, 24 Okla 252; 103 P 1021 (13 July 1909); and Black v Delaye, 193 Ala 500; 68 So 993; LRA 1915E, 640 (13 May 1915)

    Other cases in the ALR are:
    State v Heidenhain, 42 La Ann 483; 7 So 621; 21 Am St Rep 388 (21 April 1890) (second hand smoke (TTS) ban case pursuant to tobacco's then-known adverse effects, to protect in public travel, the right to fresh and pure air)
    City of Zion v Behrens, 262 Ill 510; 104 NE 836 (21 Feb 1914)
    Post Printing & Publishing Co v Brewster, Atty Gen of Kansas, 246 F 321 (D Kan, 8 Dec 1917)
    Re Paul, 94 NY 497 (1884) (issue of ban tobacco manufacture in rooms and apartments)
    United Cigar Stores v Stewart, 144 Ga 724; 87 SE 1034 (1916) (issue of $200 license fee to sell tobacco)
    Matter of Jacobs, 33 Hun 374; 2 NY Cr 346 (Oct 1884) on app 2 NY Cr 539; 98 NY 98; 50 Am Rep 636 (20 Jan 1885) (issue of ban on cigarette manufacture in tenements)
    State v Lowry, 166 Ind 372; 77 NE 728; 4 LRA (NS) 528; 9 Ann Cas 350 (26 April 1906)
    Hershberg v City of Barbourville, 142 Ky 60; 133 SW 985 (3 Feb 1911)
    State v Olson, 26 ND 304; 144 NW 661; LRA 1918B, 975 (29 Nov 1913) app dism 245 US 676; 38 S Ct 13; 62 L Ed 542 (17 Oct 1917) (snuff rules, referencing concern of adulteration of tobacco by adding opium)

14. Liability of Master for Damage to Person or Property Due to Servant's Smoking, 31 ALR 294 (1924)

    Keyser Canning Co v Klots Throwing Co, 94 W Va 346; 118 SE 521; 31 ALR 283 (26 June 1923) (fire case, court recommended firing the smoker causing it)
    Feeney v Standard Oil Co, 58 Cal App 587; 209 P 85 (20 July 1922)

15. Smoking As Ground for Expulsion or Suspension of Pupil, 33 ALR 1180 (1924)

    Tanton v McKenney, 226 Mich 245; 197 NW 510; 33 ALR 1175 (24 March 1924) (student expelled from teaching college, due to tobacco addiction)
    Parker v School District, 73 Tenn (5 Lea) 525 (Sep 1880) (suspension authority in school board)
    School Dist of Ft. Smith v Maury, 53 Ark 471; 14 SW 669 (25 Oct 1890) (issue of discharging teacher for smoking)
    Ottinger v School District No 25, 157 Ark 82; 247 SW 789 (5 Feb 1923)
    (See also 24 RCL 648 § 107, 27 RCL 141 § 10); and the Oberlin example.

16. Cigarette Tax Constitutionality, 62 ALR 105 (Dec 1929)

    Gundling v City of Chicago, 176 Ill 340; 52 NE 44; 48 LRA 230 (24 Oct 1898) aff'd 177 US 183; 20 S Ct 633; 44 L Ed 725 (9 April 1900)
    Cook v Marshall County, 119 Iowa 384; 93 NW 372; 104 Am St Rep 283 (2 Feb 1903) aff'd 196 US 261; 25 S Ct 233; 49 L Ed 471 (16 Jan 1905) (preemption issue in tax case)
    Doscher v Query, 21 F2d 521 (ED South Carolina, 15 Aug 1927) (tax case)
    Exchange Drug Co v State Tax Commission, 218 Alabama 115; 117 So 673 (10 May 1928) app dism 278 US 577; 49 S Ct 176; 73 L Ed 515 (2 Jan 1929) (tax case)
    Wright v Hirsch, 155 Ga 229; 116 SE 795 (2 March 1923) (tax case)
    Lloyd v Richardson, 158 Ga 633; 124 SE 37 (23 July 1924) (tax case)
    Tandy & F. Tobacco Co v Hopkinsville, 174 Ky 189; 192 SW 46 (23 Feb 1917) (tax case)
    Lionel's Cigar Store v McFarland, 162 La 956; 111 So 341 (3 Jan 1927) (tax case)
    Asotsky v Beach, 319 Mo 810; 5 SW2d 22; 62 ALR 95 (9 April 1928) (tax case)
    Metz v Hagerty, 51 Ohio St 521; 38 NE 11 (20 June 1894) (tax case)

17. Right to Refuse License for Sale of Cigarettes or Cigarette Papers to Applicant Who Meets Prescribed Conditions, 86 ALR 792 (1933)

    Ford Hopkins Co v Iowa City, 240 NW 687 (9 Feb 1932) repl 216 Iowa 1286; 248 NW 668 (15 May 1933), p 792 (affirming license denial)
    Bernstein v Marshalltown, 215 Iowa 1168; 248 NW 26, 27; 86 ALR 782 (4 April 1933), p 793 (permits are of grace vs right, citing Nossaman)
    Brown v City of Thomasville, 156 Ga 260; 118 SE 854 (7 Sep 1923), p 793 (reversing lower court)
    Gundling v City of Chicago, 176 Ill 340; 52 NE 44; 48 LRA 230 (24 Oct 1898) aff'd 177 US 183; 20 S Ct 633; 44 L Ed 725 (9 April 1900), p 793

18. Seller's Duty to Test or Inspect As Affecting His Liability, 6 ALR2d 12 (1949)

19. Liability of Manufacturer or Seller of Tobacco Product for Injury Caused Thereby, 80 ALR 2d 681 (1961) (See dangerous tobacco cases).

    Cooper v RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co, 234 F2d 170; 80 ALR 675 (CA 1, Mass, 24 May 1956) (§§ 3-5, pp 685-6)
    Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co v Cannon, 132 Tenn 419; 178 SW 1009; LRA 1916A 940; Ann Cas 1917A 179 (25 Aug 1915)
    Delk v Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co, 180 SC 436; 186 SE 383 (10 June 1936) (§§ 3-5, pp 685-6)
    Rankin v Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co, 246 Ky 65; 54 SW2d 612 (18 Nov 1932) (§§ 3-5, pp 685-6)
    Pillars v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 117 Miss 490; 78 So 365 (15 April 1918) (§§ 3-5, pp 685-6)
    Corum v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 205 NC 213; 171 SE 78 (11 Oct 1933) (§§ 3-5, pp 685-6)
    Webb v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co, 121 W Va 115; 2 SE2d 898 (14 March 1939) (§§ 3-5, pp 685-6)
    Meditz v Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co, 167 Misc 176; 3 NYS2d 357 (29 Jan 1938) (§§ 3-6, pp 685-6)
    Caudle v F. M. Bohannon Tobacco Co, 220 NC 105; 16 SE2d 680 (8 Oct 1941) (§§ 3-5, pp 685-6)
    Weiner v D. A. Schulte, Inc, 275 Mass 379; 176 NE 114 (26 May 1931) (§ 8, p 687)
    Foley v Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co, 136 Misc 468; 241 NYS 233 (1 April 1930) (§ 8, p 687) (first smokers' rights case)
    Nieman v Dow Drug Co, 57 Ohio App 190; 13 NE2d 130 (17 Feb 1936) (§ 8, p 687)
    Liggett & Myers Tobacco v DeLape, 25 F Supp 1006 (D SC Cal, 17 Jan 1939) aff'd 109 F2d 598 (CA 9, 26 Jan 1940) (§ 11, p 689)
    Lindner v Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co, 23 NYS2d 923 (10 Dec 1940) (§ 14, p 691)
    Ross v Philip Morris and Co, 164 F Supp 683 (WD Mo, 24 April 1958) on app 328 F2d 3 (CA 8, 26 Feb 1964) (§ 14, p 691)
    Pritchard v Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co, 134 F Supp 829 (WD Pa, 2 Aug 1955) (§ 14, p 692)
    Loftin v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 99 So 13 (Miss, 25 Feb 1924)
    Wallace v Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co, 69 SW2d 857 (Tex Civ App, 1 March 1934) (§ 17, p 695-6) (§ 17, p 695-6)

20. Manufacturer's Duty to Test or Inspect as Affecting His Liability for Product-caused Injury, 6 ALR3d 91 § 10[a] (issue of duty to test for cancer from cigarettes), p 126 (April 1966)

    Pritchard v Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co, 295 F2d 292; 22 NCCA3d 421 (CA 3, 12 Oct 1961)

21. Products Liability: Strict Liability in Tort, 13 ALR3d 1057 § 6[d] (1967) (See 63 Am Jur 2d Product Liability § 528, etc.)

22. Overvaluation in Proof of Loss of Property Insured As Fraud Avoiding Fire Insurance Policy, 16 ALR3d 774, § 17[b], 19[b] (1967)

    Western Assurance Co v Ray, 105 Ky 523; 49 SW 326 (1 Feb 1899) (ins co allegations of policyholder fraud by overvaluing loss at $13,370 vs $8,370) §17[b] p 816
    Commercial Insurance Co v Friedlander, 156 Ill 595; 41 NE 183; 16 ALR3d 774 (15 June 1895) (ins co allegations of policyholder fraud by overvaluing leaf tobacco value at $9,840 vs $1,278) §19[b] p 831

23. Termination by Principal of Distributorship Contract Containing No Express Provision for Termination, 19 ALR3d 196, § 6[b], 11, 24[b], 25 (1968)

    Kaufman v Farley Mfg Co, 78 Iowa 679; 43 NW 612 (28 Oct 1889) (mfr v cigar jobber) (§ 6[b], p 247)
    Hirschhorn v Bradley, 117 Iowa 130; 90 NW 592 (20 May 1902) (mfr v cigar sales agent) (§ 6[b], p 247; § 24[b], p 372)
    Hirschhorn v Nelden-Judson Drug Co, 26 Utah 110; 72 P 386 (1 May 1903) (mfr v sales agent) (§ 11, p 291)
    A. Santaella & Co v Otto F. Lange Co, 84 CCA 145; 155 F 719 (CA 8, Iowa, 17 June 1907) (cigar salesman termination case) (§ 25, p 376)
    Kaufman v Farley Mfg Co, 78 Iowa 679; 43 NW 612 (28 Oct 1889) (mfr terminating cigar jobber) (§ 25, p 377)

24. Master's Liability for Injury to or Death of Person, or Damage to Property, Resulting from Fire Allegedly Caused by Servant's Smoking, 20 ALR 3d 893 (1968) repl 13 ALR 997 and 31 ALR 294 (See fire data)

    Virginia Surety Co v Schlegel, 200 Kan 64; 434 P2d 772 (9 Dec 1967) (smoking-caused fire damages) (§ 3a)
    Edgewater Motels, Inc v Gatzke, 277 NW 2d 11 (Minn, 26 Jan 1979) (issue of hotel guest smoking in room causing fire leading to damage to hotel) (§ 3a)
    Dickerson v Reeves, 588 SW 2d 854 (Tex Civ App, 11 Oct 1979) (issue of smoker setting fire to premises, though forbidden to smoke on the job) (§ 3a)
    Vincennes Steel Corp v Gibson, 194 Ark 58; 106 SW2d 173 (17 May 1937) (outdoor fire in field caused by employee smoking) (§ 3a)
    Wood v Saunders, 228 App Div 69; 238 NYS 571 (10 Jan 1930) on app 228 App Div 705; 239 NYS 768 (22 Jan 1930) on app 255 NY 594; 175 NE 327 (6 Jan 1931) (gas station fire caused by smoker smoking while refueling) (§ 3a)
    McKinney v Bland, 188 Okla 661; 112 P2d 798 (25 March 1941) (fire damages caused by employee smoking) (§ 3a)
    Mack v Hugger Brothers Construction Co, 10 Tenn App 402 (20 July 1929) (§ 3a)
    McAfee v Travis Gas Corp, 137 Tex 314; 153 SW2d 442 (4 June 1941). SCB: 131 SW2d 139 (employee smoked around gas pipe, which was leaking, resultant explosion caused injury to another person) (§ 3a)
    DeMirjian v Ideal Heating Corp, 112 Cal App 2d 251; 246 P2d 51 (17 July 1952) (§ 3a)
    Independent Fire Ins Co v Able Moving & Storage Co, 642 So 2d 327 (La App, 24 May 1994) on app 650 So 2d 750 (20 Feb 1995) (moving co employee smoking caused fire in customer house) (Supp, § 3a)

    Minamayer Corp v Paper Mill Suppliers, Inc, 297 F Supp 524 (D Pa, 14 Feb 1969) (§ 3b)
    Tomlinson v Sharpe, 224 NC 177; 37 SE2d 498 (20 March 1946) (§ 3b)
    Herr v Simplex Paper Box Corp, 330 Pa 129; 198 A 309 (31 March 1938) (§ 3b)
    Adams v Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co, 295 F 586 (CA 4, SC, 5 Feb 1924) (§ 3b)
    Kelly v Louisiana Oil Refining Co, 167 Tenn 101; 66 SW2d 997 (13 Jan 1934) (§ 3b)
    Shuck v Carney, 22 Tenn App 125; 118 SW2d 896 (24 Nov 1937) (§ 3b)
    Dobson v Don January Roofing Co, 392 SW2d 153; 20 ALR3d 887 (Tex Civ App, 3 June 1965) aff'd 394 SW2d 790 (Tex, 13 Oct 1965) (§ 3b)
    Feeney v Standard Oil Co, 58 Cal App 587; 209 P 85 (20 July 1922) (§ 3b)
    Yore v Pacific Gas & Electric Co, 99 Cal App 81; 277 P 878 (21 May 1929) (§ 3b)
    DeMirjian v Ideal Heating Corp, 112 Cal App 2d 251; 246 P2d 51 (17 July 1952) (§ 3b)
    Heard v Flannagan, 10 Victoria Law Rpts 1 (1884) (fire case) (§ 3b)
    Williams v Jones 3 Hurlst & C 256; 159 Eng Rep 528; 13 ALR 989 (Crt of Exchequer, 11 June 1864) (fire case) aff'd 3 Hurlst & C 602; 159 Eng Rep 668 (Exchequer Chamber, 7 Feb 1865) (§ 3b)
    Century Insurance Co v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board, [1942] AC 509 (HL); 1 All Eng 491 (4 Feb 1942) (§ 3b)

    Hurley Pickett Lake Farms, Inc v Sullivan and Jones, 245 Ark 709; 434 SW2d 88 (25 Nov 1968) (§ 4a)
    Lindley v McKay, 201 Ark 675; 146 SW2d 545 (13 Jan 1941) (§ 4a)
    Marrier v St. Paul, M & M Ry Co, 31 Minn 351; 17 NW 952 (5 Jan 1884) (cites cigarette-causing fire analogy) (§ 4a)
    Iandorio v Kriss & Senko Enterprises, Inc, 329 Pa Super 624; 488 A2d 1169 (7 Dec 1984) on app 512 Pa 392; 517 A2d 530 (17 Nov 1986) (§ 4a)

    Merritt v United States, 332 F2d 397 (CA 1, Massachusetts, 1 June 1964) (military sergeant renting private home, caused fire, smoking in bed) (§ 4b)
    Kerr v Hudson Hotel Co, 204 Miss 396; 37 So 2d 630 (22 Nov 1948) (smoking-caused hotel fire case) (§ 4b)
    Meredith v Ringling Bros Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc, 321 F2d 107 (CA 6, Ohio, 31 July 1963) (issue of smoking-caused circus fire) (§ 4b)
    Keyser Canning Co v Klots Throwing Co, 94 W Va 346; 118 SE 521 (26 June 1923) (fire case, court recommended firing the smoker causing it) (§ 4b)

    Maloney Tank Mfg Co v Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp, 49 F2d 146 (CA 10, 30 March 1931) (oil company fire caused by employees' smoking on the job) (§ 5b)
    George v Bekins Van & Storage Co, 33 Cal 2d 834; 205 P2d 1037 (13 May 1949). SCB: 196 P2d 637 (§ 5)
    Jefferson v Derbyshire Farmers, Ltd, [1920] All Eng 129; 2 KB 281; 13 ALR 989 (3 Feb 1921) (§ 5)
    Williams v Jones 3 Hurlst & C 256; 159 Eng Rep 528; 13 ALR 989 (Crt of Exchequer, 11 June 1864) (fire case) aff'd 3 Hurlst & C 602; 159 Eng Rep 668 (Exchequer Chamber, 7 Feb 1865) (§ 5)
    Century Insurance Co v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board, [1942] AC 509 (HL); 1 All Eng 491 (4 Feb 1942) (§ 5)
    Wood v Saunders, 228 App Div 69; 238 NYS 571 (10 Jan 1930) on app 228 App Div 705; 239 NYS 768 (22 Jan 1930) on app 255 NY 594; 175 NE 327 (6 Jan 1931) (gas station fire caused by smoker smoking while refueling) (§ 5)
    Bluestein v Scoparino, 277 App Div 534; 100 NYS 2d 577 (21 Nov 1950) (issue of smoker setting fire to factory, though forbidden to smoke on the job) (§ 5)
    Allen v Posternock, 107 Pa Super 332; 163 A 336 (16 Dec 1932) (fire case; beauty salon smoker injured customer, by smoking while using flammable chemicals, violating employer no-smoking rule) (§ 5)
    Tomlinson v Sharpe, 224 NC 177; 37 SE2d 498 (20 March 1946) (§ 5)

    United States Lighterage Corp v Petterson Lighterage & Towing Corp., 45 F Supp 754 (D NY, 11 June 1942) (issue of stevedores' smoking with cargo damaged as a result) on app 142 F2d 197 (CA 2, NY, 26 April 1944) (§ 6)
    Triplett v Western Public Service Co, 128 Neb 835; 260 NW 387 (26 April 1935) (prairie fire caused by workers' smoking) on recon 129 Neb 799; 263 NW 229 (8 Nov 1935) (§ 6)
    Palmer v Keene Forestry Ass'n, 80 NH 68; 112 A 798 (1 Feb 1921) (smoking-caused fire case) (§ 6)
    Allen v Posternock, 107 Pa Super 332; 163 A 336 (16 Dec 1932) (fire case; beauty salon smoker injured customer, by smoking while using flammable chemicals, violating employer no-smoking rule) (§ 6)
    Keyser Canning Co v Klots Throwing Co, 94 W Va 346; 118 SE 521 (26 June 1923) (fire case, court recommended firing the smoker causing it) (§ 6)
    Kelly v Louisiana Oil Refining Co, 167 Tenn 101; 66 SW2d 997 (13 Jan 1934) ) (§ 6)
    Yore v Pacific Gas & Electric Co, 99 Cal App 81; 277 P 878 (21 May 1929) (§ 6)
    Herr v Simplex Paper Box Corp, 330 Pa 129; 198 A 309 (31 March 1938) (§ 6)
    Shuck v Carney, 22 Tenn App 125; 118 SW2d 896 (24 Nov 1937) (§ 6)

    Albany Insurance Co v Holberg, 166 F2d 311 (CA 8, Minn, 1 March 1948) (§ 7)
    Knecht v Castleman River Railroad Co, 25 F Supp 650 (D Pa, 9 April 1938) and app 25 F Supp 652 (D Pa, 16 Nov 1938) on app 104 F2d 677 (CA 3, Pa, 12 June 1939). SCB: 25 F Supp 650, 652 (§ 7)

    George v Bekins Van & Storage Co, 33 Cal 2d 834; 205 P2d 1037 (13 May 1949). SCB: 196 P2d 637 (§ 8)
    Feeney v Standard Oil Co, 58 Cal App 587; 209 P 85 (20 July 1922) (§ 8)
    Bluestein v Scoparino, 277 App Div 534; 100 NYS 2d 577 (21 Nov 1950) (issue of smoker setting fire to factory, though forbidden to smoke on the job) (§ 8)
    Yore v Pacific Gas & Electric Co, 99 Cal App 81; 277 P 878 (21 May 1929) (§ 8)
    Kerr v Hudson Hotel Co, 204 Miss 396; 37 So 2d 630 (22 Nov 1948) (smoking-caused hotel fire case) (§ 8)

    Feeney v Standard Oil Co, 58 Cal App 587; 209 P 85 (20 July 1922) (§ 9)
    George v Bekins Van & Storage Co, 33 Cal 2d 834; 205 P2d 1037 (13 May 1949). SCB: 196 P2d 637 (§ 9)
    Bluestein v Scoparino, 277 App Div 534; 100 NYS 2d 577 (21 Nov 1950) (issue of smoker setting fire to factory, though forbidden to smoke on the job) (§ 9)
    Allen v Posternock, 107 Pa Super 332; 163 A 336 (16 Dec 1932) (fire case; beauty salon smoker injured customer, by smoking while using flammable chemicals, violating employer no-smoking rule) (§ 9)
    Keyser Canning Co v Klots Throwing Co, 94 W Va 346; 118 SE 521 (26 June 1923) (fire case, court recommended firing the smoker causing it) (§ 9)

    Dye v Rule, 138 Kan 808; 28 P2d 758 (27 Jan 1934) (service station smoking-caused fire) (§ 10)

25. Bailee's Duty to Insure Bailed Property, 28 ALR3d 513 § 14, p 540 (1969)

26. Violation of Federal Constitutional Rule (Mapp v Ohio) Excluding Evidence Obtained Through Unreasonable Search or Seizure, As Constituting Reversible or Harmless Error, 30 ALR3d 128, § 8[a], 9[d]

    Sellars v State, 237 Md 58; 205 A2d 296 (7 Dec 1964) (stolen cigarettes) (§ 8[a], p 159)
    State v Hunt, 198 Kansas 222; 424 P2d 571 (4 March 1967) (stolen cigarettes) (§ 9[d, p 177)

27. Sufficiency of Warehouseman's Precautions to Protect Goods Against Fire, 42 ALR3d 908-1035, § 4[a], 23 (1972)

    Davis v Zaban Storage Co, 59 Ga App 474; 1 SE 2d 473, 476 (21 Feb 1939) (whse had a smoking ban) (§ 4[a], p 927)

    Barlow Upholstery & Furniture Co v Emmel, 533 P2d 900, 902 (Utah, 21 March 1975) ("allowing no smoking in the warehouse area") (Supp § 7)

    U.S. v Bohannon Co, 232 F2d 756 (CA 6, Ky, 2 May 1956) (fire-destroyed tobacco) (§ 23[a], pp 1013-1015)
    St. Louis Southwestern R Co v Linsey, 82 SW2d 686 (Tex Civ App, 27 April 1935) (§ 23[a], pp 1013-1015)
    Merchants Wharf-Boat Ass'n v Wood, 2 So 76 (25 April 1887) (§ 23[a], pp 1013-1015)
    Merchants Wharf-Boat Ass'n v Wood, 64 Miss 661 (1887) SCB: 2 So 76 (§ 23[a], pp 1013-1015)
    Merchants Wharf-Boat Ass'n v Wood, 3 So 249 (5 Dec 1887) SCB: 2 So 76 (§ 23[a], pp 1013-1015)
    Merchants Wharf-Boat Ass'n v Wood, 3 So 251 (5 Dec 1887) SCB: 2 So 76 (§ 23[a], pp 1013-1015)
    Moore's Trucking Co v Gulf Tire & Supply Co, 18 NJ Super 467; 87 A2d 441 (10 March 1952) cert den 10 NJ 22; 89 A2d 306 (16 June 1952) (§ 23[a], pp 1013-1015)
    Cole v Younger, 58 NM 211; 269 P2d 1096 (14 April 1954) (§ 23[a], pp 1013-1015)
    Birk v Bremerton, 137 Wash 119; 241 P 678 (23 Dec 1925) (§ 23[a], pp 1013-1015)
    Dohrmann Hotel Supply Co v Owl Transfer & Storage Co, 19 Wash 2d 522; 143 P2d 441; 149 ALR 1108 (30 Nov 1943) (§ 23[a], pp 1013-1015)

    George v Bekins Van & Storage Co, 33 Cal 2d 834; 205 P2d 1037 (13 May 1949). SCB: 196 P2d 637 (§ 23[b], pp 1013-1015)
    Boyles v Campbell, 420 P2d 875 (Oklahoma, 13 Sep - 25 Oct 1966) (§ 23[b], pp 1013-1015)
    Alabam's Freight Co v Jiminez, 40 Ariz 18; 9 P2d 194 (21 March 1932) (§ 23[b], pp 1013-1015)
    Employers Fire Ins Co v Laney & Duke Storage Warehouse Co, 392 F2d 138 (CA 5, Florida, 11 April 1968) (§ 23[b], pp 1013-1015)
    Shockley v Tennyson Transfer & Storage, 76 Idaho 131; 278 P2d 795 (4 Jan 1955) (§ 23[b], pp 1013-1015)
    Price & Pierce v Jarka Great Lakes Corp, 37 F Supp 939 (ED Mich, 9 April 1941) (§ 23[b], pp 1013-1015)
    Brown v Sloan's Moving & Storage Co, 296 SW2d 20 (Mo, 12 Nov 1956) (§ 23[b], pp 1013-1015)
    Hoerath v Sloan's Moving & Storage Co, 305 SW2d 418 (Mo, 9 Sep 1957) (§ 23[b], pp 1013-1015)
    Clark v National Movers Co, 53 NJ Super 325; 147 A2d 298 (5 Jan 1959) (§ 23[b], pp 1013-1015)
    Denning Warehouse Co v Widener, 172 F2d 910 (CA 10, New Mexico, 4 Feb 1949) (§ 23[b], pp 1013-1015)

28. Criminal Prosecution Based Upon Breaking Into or Taking Money or Goods From Vending Machine or Other Coin Operated Machine, 45 ALR3d 1286 (§3-7, 9-11) (1972)

    State v Aspell, 5 Ohio App 2d 44; 34 Ohio Ops 2d 131; 213 NE2d 748 (14 Jan 1966) motion to set bond overr 5 Ohio App 2d 230; 34 Ohio Ops 2d 371; 214 NE2d 834 (1 March 1966) aff'd 10 Ohio St 2d 1; 39 Ohio Ops 2d 1; 225 NE2d 226 (29 March 1967) (§3, p 1289; and §9, p 1298) (cigarette machine was not a "depository box" so conviction for theft of "Winston" cigarettes was reversed)

    State v Shore, 10 NC App 75; 178 SE2d 22 (16 Dec 1970) cert den 278 NC 105; 179 SE2d 453 (3 March 1971) (possession of tools to enter cigarette machine) (§4, p 1290; §7, p 1296)

    U.S. ex rel Chiarello v Mancusi, 288 F Supp 178 (SD NY, 21 Aug 1968) (§5[c], p 1293) (habeas corpus denied to cigarette thief)

    Russell v U.S., 133 App DC 77; 408 F2d 1280 (24 Jan 1969) cert den 395 US 928; 89 S Ct 1786; 23 L Ed 2d 245 (26 May 1969) (stolen hatful of cigarettes hidden under coat) (§6, p 1294; §10, p 1300)

    Tierney v State, 223 Md 454; 164 A2d 916 (11 Nov 1960) (100 packages stolen) (§10, p 1300)

    Neil v State, 227 Md 298; 176 A2d 338 (26 Dec 1961) (§11, p 1300)

    Hudson v State, 525 P2d 1380 (Oklahoma, 1974) (evidence including loose coins in cigar box) (Supp, §13, p 121, June 1999)

29. Licenses, Validity, Construction, and Application of State Statutes Forbidding Possession, Transportation, or Sale of Unstamped or Unlicensed Cigarettes or Other Tobacco Products, 46 ALR3d 1342 (15 Nov 1972)

    Tonasket v State, 79 Wash 2d 607; 488 P2d 281 (2 Sep 1971) (§2, p 1344)

    State v Sedacca, 252 Md 207; 249 A2d 456 (21 Jan 1969) (§3, p 1344; §4[e], p 1352)
    Cornish v State, 6 Md App 167; 251 A2d 23 (4 March 1969) (§3, p 1345)
    People v Asta, 337 Mich 590; 60 NW2d 472 (5 Oct 1953) (§3, p 1345; §4[d], p 1351; §5, p 1353)
    People v Locricchio, 342 Mich 210; 69 NW2d 723 (14 April 1955) (§3, p 1346)
    State of New Jersey v Gillman, 119 NJ Super 302; 273 A2d 617; 46 ALR3d 1337 (9 Feb 1971) (§3, p 1346)
    Commonwealth v Flickinger, 165 Pa Super 95; 67 A2d 779 (15 July 1949) aff'd 365 Pa 59; 73 A2d 652 (22 May 1950) cert den 340 US 843; 71 S Ct 33; 95 L Ed 618 (9 Oct 1950) (§3, p 1346; §5, p 1353) (conviction for possession of 200 unstamped cigarettes)

    Gates v Hughson, 186 Ark 348; 53 SW2d 581 (24 Oct 1932) (§4[a] p 1347)
    Supervisor of Public Accounts v Twelve Cases of Smoking Tobacco, 172 So 364 (La App, 8 Feb 1937) (tax case) (§4[a] p 1348; §4[d] p 1351)
    Gorman v State, 130 Tex Crim 149; 93 SW2d 1145 (5 Feb 1936) (§4[a], p 1348; §4[d], p 1351)

    State v Louisiana Stores Co, Inc, 154 So 464 (La App, 4 May 1934) (§4[b], p 1348; §5, p 1353)
    State v Southern Mercantile Co, Inc, 180 La 753; 157 So 551 (29 Oct 1934) (§4[b], p 1349)
    N. Tilli & Sons, Inc v Commonwealth, 420 Pa 28; 215 A2d 653 (4 Jan 1966) (§4[b], p 1349; §4[c], p 1350)

    State v Lagomarcino-Grupe Co, 207 Iowa 621; 223 NW 512 (5 Feb 1929) (§4[c], p 1350)

    Neeld v Giroux, 24 NJ 224; 131 A2d 508 (6 May 1957) (§4[d], p 1351; §5, p 1353)
    State v 483 Cases, 98 NH 180; 96 A2d 568 (5 May 1953) (§4[d], p 1353; §5, p 1353)

    Pfeiffer v State, 226 Ark 825; 295 SW2d 365 (22 Oct 1956) (§5, p 1352)
    Ex parte Winn, 61 Okla Crim 1; 64 P2d 927 (31 Dec 1936) (§5, p 1354)

    Oklahoma Tax Commission v Citizens Band of Potawatomi Tribe of Oklahoma, 498 US 505; 111 S Ct 905; 112 L Ed 2d 1112 (26 Feb 1991) (§4[c], June 1999 Supp, p 226)

    Confederated Salish & Koetena Tribes of Flathead Reservation, Montana v Moe, In and For Missoula County, 392 F Supp 1297 (D Mont, 4 Feb 1975) aff'd 425 US 463; 96 S Ct 1634; 48 L Ed 2d 96 (27 April 1976) (June 1999 Supp) (unlicnesed cigarette sales by Indians upheld)

    O'Leary v Allphin, 35 Ill App 3d 223; 341 NE2d 143 (6 Nov 1975) (§4[d], June 1999 Supp, p 226)

30. Rights in Respect of Crops as Between Estate of Life Tenant and Remainderman, 47 ALR3d 784, § 5, 13 (22 Jan 1973)

    Thompson's Administrator v Thompson's Executor, 20 Va (6 Munf) 514 (4 March 1820) (inheritance issues lawsuit re widow of tobacco farmer)
    Gentry v Alexander, 311 Ky 344; 224 SW2d 143 (1 Nov 1949) (describing the planting process)

31. Identification, Necessity and Sufficiency of Identification of Defendant as Manufacturer or Seller of Product Alleged to Have Caused Injury, 51 ALR3d 1344 § 3 (15 Aug 1973)

    Wilhelm v Globe Solvent Co, 373 A2d 218 (Del, 17 March 1977) (smoking coworker caused fire and injury) (June 1999 Supp § 3, p 232)

32. School's Right to Discipline Pupil for Conduct Away from School Grounds or Not Immediately Connected With School Activities, 53 ALR3d 1124, § 14 p 1145 (1973)

    Hood v Tabor Academy, 296 Mass 509; 6 NE2d 818 (24 Feb 1937) (expulsion for smoking in nearby village)
    O'Connor v Board of Ed, 65 Misc 2d 40; 316 NYS2d 799 (18 Dec 1970) (upholding smoking-drinking ban)

33. Assault and Battery: Consent as Defense to Criminal Charge, 58 ALR3d 662-667 (12 Sep 1974) (See also, "definitions" site; 46 ALR5th 813, infra; and Somerset v Stewart, 20 Howell's 1; 98 Eng Rep 499-510 (1772) against contracting self-enslavement.)

    People v Gray, 224 Cal App 2d 76; 36 Cal Rptr 263 (1964) (rejecting consent when "great bodily harm" results) (§ 2[a] p 664)
    People v Samuels, 250 Cal App 2d 501; 58 Cal Rptr 439 (1967) cert den 390 US 1024; 88 S Ct 1404; 20 L Ed 2d 281 (rejecting consent by child, insane person, and when great bodily injury results) (§ 2[a] p 664; § 3 p 666)
    Taylor v State, 214 Md 156; 133 A2d 414; 65 ALR2d 740 (1957) (rejecting consent in cases of breach of public peace) (§ 2[a] p 664)
    Commonwealth v Collberg, 119 Mass 350; 1876 Mass LEXIS 30 (4 Jan 1876) (consent is void because it is against the law) (§ 2[a] p 665)
    Commonwealth v Farrell, 322 Mass 606; 78 NE2d 697 (12 April 1948) (sadistic burning-by-cigarette case, citing King v Donovan, 2 KB 498; 30 Cox CC 187 (CCA) (1934) rejecting consent where bodily harm is likely to result; "bodily harm" means any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with health or comfort, more than merely transient and trifling, but not requiring permanent effect) (§ 2[a] p 665)
    Wright v Starr, 42 Nev 441; 179 P 877; 6 ALR 981 (1919) (rejecting consent in cases of breach of public peace) (§ 2[a] p 665)
    State v Fransua, 85 NM 173; 510 P2d 106; 58 ALR3d 656 (NM App, 1973) (rejecting consent in cases of breach of public peace, whether or not individuals have so little regard for their own safety as to invite injury, as the public has a stronger and overriding interest in banning such acts) (§ 2[a] p 665)
    People ex rel Burke v Steinberg, 190 Misc 413; 73 NYS2d 475 (1947) (rejecting consent in cases of breach of public peace, or involving anything of the character of illegality, or injurious to the public also, and rejecting consent obtained by fraud, stupefaction, ignorance or incapacity of the harmed person, re consenting to injection of "vaccine" that was in fact nothing but water!) (§ 2[a] p 665; § 3 p 667)
    People v Lenti, 44 Misc 2d 118; 253 NYS2d 9 (1964) (rejecting consent to harm resulting in several weeks of hospitalization)
    State v Roby, 83 Vt 121; 74 A 638 (1909) (rejecting consent in cases of breach of public peace and dignity) (§ 2[a] p 666)
    Wiley v Carpenter, 64 Vt 212; 23 A 630 (1892) (rejecting consent in cases of breach of public peace and dignity) (§ 2[a] p 666)
    Banovitch v Commonwealth, 196 Va 210; 83 SE2d 369 (1954) (rejecting consent to harm during course of incompetent cancer treatment, consent invalid in cases of fraud, recklessness, breach of public peace and dignity) (§ 2[a] p 666; § 3 p 667)

    Van Vactor v State, 113 Ind 276; 15 NE 341; 1888 Ind LEXIS 34 (9 Feb 1888) (issue of a genuine alternative) (§ 2[b] p 666)
    State v Beck, 19 SCL 363 (1833) (issue of a genuine alternative) (§ 2[b] p 666)

    State v Lankford, 29 Del 594; 102 A 63 (1917) (rejecting consent obtained by not providing full advance disclosure, rejecting consent to cruel treatment, or infection by a loathsome disease) (§ 3 p 667)
    Commonwealth v Nickerson, 87 Mass 518; 1862 Mass LEXIS 422 (Nov 1862) (rejecting consent by a minor, age 9) (§ 3 p 667)
    Guarro v United States, 99 App DC 97; 237 F2d 578 (1956) (rejecting consent obtained by fraud) (§ 3 p 667)

The Only "Consent Is Invalid"
Case Most People Have Ever Heard Of
People v Kevorkian, 447 Mich 436; 527 NW2d 714 (1994)

34. Sufficiency of Description of Crops under UCC §§ 9-203(a)(b) and 9-402(1), 67 ALR3d 308 (31 Dec 1975)

    Opinion of Attorney General of Kentucky, No 60-695, 1 UCCRS 679 (18 July 1960) (crop location description by farm name) (§ 3[c] p 317

    United States v Big Z Warehouse, (DC Ga, 3 April 1970) (§ 4 p 318, § 5 p 318)

    E-B Grain Co v Denton and Stephenson Tobacco Whse, Inc, 73 NC App 14; 325 SE2d 522; 40 UCCRS 1119 (19 Feb 1985) rev den 313 NC 598; 330 SE2d 608 (7 May 1985) (Aug 1999 Supp § 3[b] p 28)

    Bank of Danville v Farmers Nat'l Bank, 602 SW2d 160; 29 UCCRS 1020 (Ky, 24 June 1980) (Aug 1999 Supp § 5 p 30)
    Citizens Bank v Gregory's Warehouse, Inc, 297 SC 151; 375 SE2d 316 (SC App, 24 Oct 1988) (Aug 1999 Supp § 5 p 32)

35. [After Prohibition Repeal] Civil Liability of Prison or Jail Authorities for Self-Inflicted Injury or Death of Prisoner, 79 ALR3d 1210, § 3, 4[a], 5, 6[a] (20 Sep 1977)

    Thomas v Williams, 105 Ga App 321; 124 SE2d 409 (15 Feb 1962) (smoker jailed with cigarettes was negligently left drunk, partly unconscious, so burned to death in foreseeable mattress fire) (§ 3 p 1216; § 4[a] p 1218; § 6[a] p 1228)
    Kendrick v Adamson, 51 Ga App 402; 180 SE 647 (15 June 1935) (smoker jailed with cigarettes was negligently left drunk, thus was burned to death in foreseeable resultant mattress fire) (§ 3 p 1217; § 5[b] p 1226; § 6[a] p 1228)

    Porter v County of Cook, 42 Ill App 3d 287; 355 NE2d 561 (7 Sep 1976) (cigarette-fire injury damages case; mentally ill smoker confined to jail with his cigarettes, burned in resultant fire, due to his hallucinating that smoke would drive away the voices he was hearing) (§ 5 p 1221)

36. When Are A Building and Its Structural Component Not Qualifying for Investment Tax Credit Under § 38 and 48(a)(1)(B) of Internal Revenue Code (26 USC § 38 and §48(a)(1)(B)), 39 ALR Fed 307, § 6 p 322 (20 Sep 1978)

    Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co v United States, 369 F Supp 1283 (WD Ky, 9 March 1973) aff'd 491 F2d 1258 (CA 6, Ky, 28 Feb 1974) (income tax case involving request for refund of tax related to storage sheds)

37. Unfair Competition by Imitation in Sign or Design of Business Place, 86 ALR3d 884, § 12[a], 14[a], 20 (20 Sep 1978)

    United Cigar Stores Co v United Confectioners, 92 NJ Eq 449; 113 A 226; 17 ALR 779 (28 Feb 1921) (unfair competition by deceptive similarity to another's business) (§ 12[a] p 903; § 14[a] [907])
    Federal Trade Com'n v Errera, 7 FTC 375 (5 March 1924) (unfair competition by deceptive similarity to another's business) (§ 20 p 931)

38. Prosecutions Based Upon Alleged Illegal Possession of Instruments to be Used in Violation of Narcotics Laws, 92 ALR3d 47 (6 July 1979)

39. Propriety of Federal Trade Commission Order Under 15 USC § 45 Applying to All Products in Broad Category, Where Commission Has Found False Advertising of Only One Product or Group of Products Sold By Part, 45 ALR Fed 612, § 10 (19 Dec 1979)

40. Validity, Construction, and Effect of Sunday Closing or Blue Laws, 10 ALR4th 246 § 3, 5[a], 11[a], 11[c], 13[b] (7 Dec 1981)

    McGowan v Maryland, 366 US 420; 81 S Ct 110; 6 L Ed 2d 393; 17 Ohio Ops 2d 151; 44 CCH LC § 50258 (1961) (§ 3, p 256)
    Gallagher v Crown Kosher Super Market, Inc, 366 US 617; 81 S Ct 1122; 6 L Ed 2d 556; 17 Ohio Ops 2d 195; 44 CCH LC § 50261 (1961) (§ 3)
    State v Underwood, 283 NC 154; 195 SE2d 489 (1973) (§ 3, p 261)
    State v Giant of St. Albans, Inc, 128 Vt 539; 268 A2d 739 (1970) (§ 3, p 267)
    State v Gilfel of Rutland, Inc, 128 Vt 595; 270 A2d 153 (1970) (§ 3, p 267)
    Spartan's Industries, Inc v Oklahoma City, 498 P2d 399 (1972) (§ 3, p 270) (judge agrees legislative act was bizarre, distinguishing between the indisgintguishable, on selling cigarettes at parks vs retail stores)
    Clark's Charlotte, Inc v Hunter, 261 NC 222; 134 SE2d 364 (1964) (§ 5[a], p 282)
    State v Karmil Merchandizing Corp, 158 Me 450; 186 A2d 352 (1961) (§ 11[a], p 315) (issue of whether a restaurant selling cigarettes, etc., remained a restaurant within meaning of the law)
    Dart Drug Corp v Hechinger Co, 272 Md 15; 320 A2d 266 (1974) (issue of drug store vs home center, distinguishing sales of items such as tobacco) (§ 11[b], pp 317-8)
    State v Footlick, 2 Ohio St 2d 206; 31 Ohio Ops 2d 411; 207 NE2d 759 (2 June 1965) (§ 13[b], pp 323-4; conviction for selling merchandise including tobacco) (context)

41. Wife's Liability for Necessaries Furnished to Husband, 11 ALR4th 1160, § 7, p 1174 (11 Jan 1982)

42. Leaving or Refusing Employment Because of Allergic Reaction as Affecting Right to Unemployment Compensation, 12 ALR 4th 629 (25 Feb 1982)

    ("allergic" is the wrong term to refer to the reaction to employer lawlessness, refusal to obey the "right to fresh and pure air" and pertinent state law, common law, and OSHA safety regulations against toxic chemicals and negligent hiring practices)

    Alexander v California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, 104 Cal App 3d 97; 163 Cal Rptr 411 (1 April 1980) (p 630)
    Ruckstiehl v Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 57 Pa Cmnwlth 302; 426 A2d 719 (4 March 1981) (p 635)
    Billman v Sumrall, 464 So 2d 382 (La App, 26 Feb 1985) (Supp, p 162, Aug 1999)

43. Right to Unemployment Compensation As Affected by Employee's Refusal to Work in Areas Where Smoking Is Permitted, 14 ALR 4th 1234 (21 June 1982) (Smoking is not allowed on the job pursuant to the common law "right to fresh and pure air," but some employers do not comply, and employees are unaware of their right to an injunction to enforce compliance)

    Alexander v California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, 104 Cal App 3d 97; 163 Cal Rptr 411; 14 ALR4th 1229 (1 April 1980)
    Rotenberg v Industrial Commission, 42 Colo App 161; 590 P2d 521 (1 Feb 1979)
    Beecham v Falstaff Brewing Corp, 150 Neb 792; 36 NW2d 233 (2 Feb 1949)
    Ruckstiehl v Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 57 Pa Cmnwlth 302; 426 A2d 719 (4 March 1981)
    McCrocklin v Employer and Calif Dep't of Employment, 156 Cal App 3d 1067; 205 Cal Rptr 156 (7 June 1984)
    Billman v Sumrall, 464 So 2d 382 (La App, 26 Feb 1985)
    Lapham v Commonwealth Unemployment Comp Bd of Review, 103 Pa Cmnwlth 144; 519 A2d 1101 (Penn, 13 Jan 1987)
    Wivell v Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 673 A2d 439 (Penn, 19 March 1996). SCB: UCBR No. B-339019

44. Right of Employee to Injunction Preventing Employer From Exposing Employee to Tobacco Smoke in Workplace, 37 ALR 4th 480 (23 April 1985) (See the "right to pure and fresh air.")

45. Defamation by Question, 53 ALR4th 450, § 5[c], 6[a, c] (21 April 1987)

Birch v Benton, 26 Mo 153, 155-6 (Jan Term 1858) (a slavery era case, deeming it an offense to imply a slaver preferred his slave to his wife; "I wonder when the damned scoundrel whipped his wife last"—innuendo being, at slave girl's behest!) (§ 4[c], pp 463-4)

46. Zoning, What Constitutes Incidental or Accessory Use of Property Zoned, and Primarily Used, for Residential Purposes, 54 ALR4th 1034, § 38 p 1084 (11 June 1987)

    140 Riverside Drive v Murdock, 276 App Div 550; 95 NYS2d 860 (28 March 1950) (zoning ordinance ban upheld, no sales allowed of tobacco, etc.)

47. Civil Liability for Tobacco Sales to Minors, 55 ALR 4th 1238 (7 July 1987)

Whitworth v Fast Fare Markets of South Carolina, Inc, 289 SC 418; 338 SE2d 155; 55 ALR4th 1235 (17 Dec 1985)

48. Sufficiency of Evidence to Support Product Misuse Defense in Actions Concerning Food, Drugs, and Other Products Intended for Ingestion, 58 ALR4th 7 (31 Dec 1987)

49. Pre-Emptive Effect of OSHA, §19[b] Injunction, 88 ALR Fed 833, § 19[b] p 869 (11 July 1988)

50. Employer's Liability to Employee for Failure to Provide Work Environment Free from Tobacco Smoke, 63 ALR 4th 1021 (15 July 1988)

    Bernard v Cameron & Colby Co, Inc, 397 Mass 320; 491 NE2d 604; 63 ALR 4th 1015; 2 IER Cas (BNA) 678; 104 Lab Cas (CCH) § 55,584 (13 April 1986)
    Gordon v Raven Systems & Research, Inc, 462 A2d 10 (DC App, 5 May 1983) (§ 3, p 1024)
    Shimp v New Jersey Bell Telephone Co, 145 N J Super 516; 368 A2d 408 (20 Dec 1976) (§ 3, p 1024)
    McCarthy v State of Washington Dep't of Social and Health Services, 46 Wash App 125; 730 P2d 681; 1 IER Cas (BNA) 1233 (8 Dec 1986) on app 3 IER Cas (BNA) 710; 1988 OSH (CCH) ¶ 28,254; 3 IER Cas (BNA)710; 13 OSHC (BNA) 1811; 110 Wash 2d 812; 759 P2d 351 (30 June 1988) (§ 3, p 1025)
    Vickers v Veterans Administration, 29 FEP Cases 1197; 30 E.P.D. § 27,352; 549 F Supp 85 (D Wash, 31 Aug 1982) (§ 5, p 1027)
    Kensell v State of Oklahoma, 716 F2d 1350 (CA 10, Okl, 13 Sep 1983) (employee request for smoke-free workplace) (§ 6, p 1028)
    Richardson v Hennly, 209 Ga App 868; 434 SE2d 772 (15 July 1993) rev'd 262 Ga 355; 444 SE2d 317; 1994 Ga LEXIS 463, 94 Fulton County DR 2140; 3 AD Cas 617; 10 BNA EIR Cas 1780 (27 June 1994) recon den 14 July 1994 (Supp, p 42)
    Dep't of Fair Employment and Housing v City of Fresno Dep't of Social Services, Nos. FEP 82-83, C9-0084p, FEP 82-83 C9-0143re, FEP82083 C9-0085p, and FEP 82-83 C9-0199re (Cal Fair Empl and Housing Comm, 21 Sep 1987) aff'd as County of Fresno v Fair Employment and Housing Commission of the State of California [Real Parties in Interest, Danyse Brooks, et al], 226 Cal App 3d 1541; 277 Cal Rptr 557; 91 CDOS 754; 91 Daily Journal DAR 1112 (23 Jan 1991) reh den 91 CDOS 1365; 91 Daily Journal DAR 2109 (19 Feb 1991) rev den 1991 Cal LEXIS 1458 (11 April 1991)
    Holt v Olmstead Township Board of Trustees, 43 F Supp 2d 812; 51 Fed R Evid Serv 968 (ND Ohio, 18 Sep 1998)
    Thaxton v Norfolk Southern Ry Co, 239 Ga App 18; 520 SE2d 735 (8 July 1999)

51. Validity, Construction, and Application of Nonsmoking Regulations, 65 ALR 4th 1205-1230 (6 Oct 1988)

    Craig by Craig v Buncombe County Board of Education, 80 NC App 683; 343 SE2d 222 (20 May 1986) app dism, rev den, 318 NC 281; 348 SE 2d 138 (28 Aug 1986) (school smoking ban to prevent addiction; students suspended for repeated smoking) (§ 3[a] p 1209; § 3[c] p 1212)
    Rossie v State/Dep't of Revenue, 133 Wisc 2d 341; 395 NW2d 801; 1 IER Cases (BNA) Cas 1048; 105 Lab Cas (CCH) ¶ 55,658; 65 ALR 4th 1191 (Wis App, 12 Sep 1986) (smoker vs smokefree job rule, upholding the rule as unconstitutional; repeated violators could be fired) (§ 3[a] p 1209; § 3[d] p 1213; § 5[b] p 1219; § 8 p 1229)
    Grusendorf v City of Oklahoma City, 816 F2d 539; 2 IER Cases (BNA) 51 (CA 10, Okla, 17 April 1987) (smoking on the job case, smokers discharged) (§ 3[a] p 1210; § 3[c] p 1211)
    Washington v Tinsley, 809 F Supp 504 (SD Texas, 1992) (building smoking ban for health and safety reasons) (Aug 1999 Supp § 3[a, c] p 48; § 8 p 49)
    Operation Badlaw v Licking County Gen. Health Dist. Bd of Health, 866 F Supp 1059 (SD Ohio, 26 June 1992) aff'd w/o op 991 F2d 796; US App LEXIS 8685, § 3[b] (CA 6, 13 April 1993) (upholding a pure air law) (Aug 1999 Supp § 3[a-b, d] p 48; § 8-9 p 49)
    Fagan v Axelrod, Comm'r, NY St Dept of Health, 146 Misc 2d 286; 550 NYS 2d 552; 1990 OSHD (CCH) § 28924 (10 Jan 1990) (smoking ban case verifying, p 557, that second-hand smoke is dangerous) (Aug 1999 Supp § 3[a-b] p 48)

    Swanson v City of Tulsa, 633 P2d 1256 (Okla Crim App, 3 Sep 1981) (conviction for smoking in courthouse elevator) (§ 3[b] p 1210; § 8 p 1229)
    Alford v City of Newport News, 220 Va 584; 260 SE2d 241 (21 Nov 1979) (unconstitutionality of partial smoking ban not protecting the public) (§ 3[b] p 1211; § 5[e] p 1222)
    Caldwell v Quinlan, 729 F Supp 4 (D DC, 25 Jan 1990) aff'd US App DC; 923 F2d 200 (mem, 25 Jan 1991) (requesting enforcement of pure air law by regulation) (Aug 1999 Supp § 3[b] p 48)

    Kelley v Johnson, 425 US 238; 96 S Ct 1440; 47 L Ed 2d 708; 11 EPD (CCH) § 10788 (1976) on remand (CA 2) 543 F2d 465 (1976) (§ 3[c] p 1211)
    State v Heidenhain, 42 La Ann 483; 7 So 621; 21 Am St Rep 388 (21 April 1890) (TTS ban due to tobacco's adverse effects (§ 3[c] p 1212; § 5[d] p 1221)

    Diefenthal v Civil Aeronautics Board, 681 F2d 1039 (CA 5, 6 Aug 1982) cert den 459 US 1107; 103 S Ct 732; 74 L Ed 2d 956 (10 Jan 1983) (travelers' rights case, upholding smoking ban constitutionality) (§ 4 p 1213)
    Action on Smoking and Health v Civil Aeronautics Board, 226 US App DC 57; 699 F2d 1209 (28 Jan 1983) supp op on other gnds 230 US App DC 1; 713 F2d 795 (30 June 1983) later proceeding on other grounds 233 US App DC 79; 724 F2d 211 (6 Jan 1984) (travelers' rights case affirming authority over TTS) (§ 4 p 1215)
    National Ass'n of Motor Bus Owners v United States, 370 F Supp 408 (D DC, 31 Jan 1974) (travelers' rights case involving company opposition to ICC enforcement of the right to pure air protecting nonsmokers from second hand TTS) (§ 4 p 1216)

    Boreali v Axelrod, Commissioner, New York State Dep't of Health, 130 App Div 2d 107; 518 NYS 2d 440; 2 IER Cases (BNA) 671; 107 LC (CCH) § 55802 (23 July 1987) aff'd 71 NY 2d 1; 523 NYS2d 464; 517 NE2d 1350; 2 IER Cases (BNA) 1213; 108 LC (CCH) § 55850 (25 Nov 1987) (verifying, pp 6-8, that second-hand smoke is dangerous) (§ 5[a] p 1218; § 5[c] p 1220)
    Board of Education v Cohalan, 135 Misc 2d 358; 515 NYS 2d 691 (9 April 1987) (TTS regulation case banning smoking in schools after-hours) (§ 5[a] p 1218)
    City of San Jose v Department of Health Services, 66 Cal App 4th 35; 77 Cal Rptr 2d 609 (18 Aug 1998) rev den 18 Nov 1998 (upholding local smoking control regulation) (Aug 1999 Supp § 5[a, d] p 49)
    City of North Miami v Kurtz, 625 So 2d 899; 18 FLW D 2210; 8 IER Cases (BNA) 1611 (1995) rev'd 653 So 2d 1025; 10 IER Cases (BNA) 865 (Fla, 20 April 1995 reh den 5 July 1995) (upholding city regulation on not hiring smokers) (Aug 1999 Supp § 5[a, d] p 49)
    Cookie's Diner v Columbus Bd. of Health, 65 Ohio Misc 2d 65; 640 NE2d 1231 (9 Aug 1994) (Aug 1999 Supp § 5[a, c] p 49) (enforcement of pure air common law) (Aug 1999 Supp § 5[a,c] p 49; § 8 p 49)

    City of Zion v Behrens, 262 Ill 510; 104 NE 836; 51 LNS 562 (21 Feb 1914) (§ 5[e] p 1221)
    Hershberg v City of Barbourville, 142 Ky 60; 133 SW 985; 34 LNS 141; Ann Cas 1912D, 189 (3 Feb 1911) (§ 5[e] p 1222)

    Tanton v McKenney, 226 Mich 245; 197 NW 510; 33 ALR 1175 (24 March 1924) (student expelled from teaching college, due to tobacco addiction) (§ 5[f] p 1223; § 6 p 1226)
    Randol v Newberg Public School Board, 23 Or App 425; 542 P2d 938 (24 Nov 1975) (school smoking ban upheld, for reasons including to prevent developing smoking as a behavior in youth, to preserve their good health)(§ 5[f] p 1223; § 6 p 1226)

    Chambersburg Area School District v Com of Pennsylvania PERC, 60 Pa Cmwlth 29; 430 A2d 740 (12 June 1981) app dism 498 Pa 366; 446 A2d 603 (17 June 1982) (school can ban smoking without negotiating it) (§ 5[g] p 1224)

    Commonwealth v Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 74 Pa Cmwlth Ct 1; 459 A2d 452; 113 LRRM (BNA) 3052 (28 April 1983) (case on authority to ban TTS) (§ 5[h] p 1225)

    Matter of L.M., 432 A2d 692 (DC App, 4 May 1981) (conviction of smoking on bus) (§ 7[a] p 1226)
    Bollin v Kingston, 89 App Div 2d 658; 453 NYS2d 113 (8 July 1982) (rule upheld, school bus driver suspended for smoking) (§ 7[a] p 1227)

    Ravreby v United Airlines, 293 NW2d 260 (Iowa, 18 June 1980) (travelers' rights case on TTS, and issue of a partial smoking ban) (§ 7[b] p 1227)
    American Express Travel Related Services v Marco, 611 F Supp 938 (D SD NY, 27 June 1985) (travelers' pure-air rights case)

    City of Niles v Rota, No. 3323 (Ohio App Dist 11) (arrest for smoking in theatre) (§ 8 p 1228)

    McGee v Adams Paper & Twine Co, 26 App Div 2d 186; 271 NYS2d 698 (7 July 1966) motion gr 19 NY2d 673; 278 NYS2d 864; 225 NE2d 555 (16 Feb 1967) aff'd 20 NY2d 921; 286 NYS2d 274; 233 NE2d 289 (29 Nov 1967) (smoking-caused building fire, fireman came to fight the fire, death ensued, and widow's lawsuit for compensation) (§ 9 p 1229) (§ 7[b] p 1228) (§ 8 p 1228) (§ 8 p 1228) (§ 8 p 1228)

52. Products Liability: What Is an 'Unavoidably Unsafe' Product?" 70 ALR 4th 16 § 15[a] (cigarette smoking) (20 June 1989)

53. Federal Pre-emption of State Common-Law Products Liability Claims Pertaining to Tobacco Products, 97 ALR Fed 890 (23 May 1990)

54. Products Liability, Lighters and Ligher Fluid, 14 ALR 5th 47-88 (19 Aug 1993)

    Bean v BIC Corp, 597 So 2d 1350; CCH Prod Liab Rep 16 § 13163; 14 ALR 5th 984 (17 April 1992) (child injured by lighter fire, failure in duty to provide child-resistant lighter)

55. Smoking As Basis for Reduction in Damages in Personal Injury Action, 25 ALR 5th 343-390 (13 Dec 1994)

56. Search Conducted by School Official or Teacher as Violation of Fourth Amendment or Equivalent State Constitutional Provision, 31 ALR5th 229-498 §§ 11[a], 48, 52, 53[b], 54, 60, 62[a], 69, 72[a], (9 Aug 1995)

57. Smoking As Factor in Child Custody and Visitation Cases, 36 ALR 5th 377-393 (25 March 1996) (See divorce and custody cases)

    Heck v Reed, 529 NW2d 155; 1995 ND LEXIS 35; 36 ALR 5th 849 (North Dakota, 28 Feb 1995) (Details at ASH) (custody case, issue of violence vs. smoking) (§ 2[a], 3)

    Lizzio v Lizzio, 162 Misc 2d 701; 618 NYS2d 934 (New York, 1 July 1994) rev 226 App Div 2d 760; 640 NYS2d 330 (4 April 1996) (Details at ASH) (§ 2[b])

    Unger v Unger, 274 New Jersey Super 532; 644 A2d 691 (29 March 1994) (Details at ASH) (this is a well-reasoned custody case; it banned smoking; cited the Shimp precedent as showing the hazard is to those all around) (§ 2b)

    Cowgill v Cowgill, 1993 Delaware Family Ct LEXIS 40; 1993 WL 331912 (Del Family Ct, 19 May 1993) (§ 3)

    Badeaux v Badeaux, 541 So 2d 301 (Louisiana App, 15 March 1989) (Details at ASH) (§ 3)

    Wilk v Wilk, 781 SW2d 217 (Missouri App, 5 Dec 1989) (Details at ASH) (§ 3)

    Roofeh v Roofeh, 138 Misc 29 889; 525 NYS2d 765 (Nassau County Family Court, Mineola, New York, 22 Feb 1988) (Details at ASH) (§ 3)

    Karen Mitchell v Robert Mitchell, Appeal No. 01-A-01-9012-CV-00442, 1991 Tennessee App LEXIS 337; 1991 WL 63674 (26 April 1991) (Details at ASH) (§ 3)

    Pizzitola v Pizzitola, 748 SW2d 568 (Texas App, 31 March 1988) (Details at ASH) (§ 3)

    Montufar v Navot, Docket No. FM 04-0021-8789 (Sup Ct, Fam Div, Camden New Jersey, Judge Orlando, 23 July 1993)

    Reeves v Reeves (Circuit Court, Kentucky, o/a 3 June 1988) (child impacted by second-hand smoke case)

    Nocera v Nocera, Case No. B 89-2922 DM (Kalamazoo, Michigan, Judge John F. Foley, 29 May 1991)

    Bryant/Dept of Social Services v Wakely, Appeal No. 131708 / 211708 (Michigan App, 13 June 1991)

    In re Marriage of Brian T. Diddens, 255 Illinois App 3d 850; 192 Ill Dec 878; 625 NE2d 1033; 1993 Ill App LEXIS 1933 (22 Dec 1993) (Details at ASH) (§ 4) In re Marriage of Stanley, 411 NW2d 698 (Iowa, 24 June 1987) (§ 4)

    Cooley v Cooley, 643 So 2d 408 (Louisiana App, 5 Oct 1994) (custody case, change in circumstances needed) (Details at ASH) (§ 4)

    Tamara Helm v Mark Helm, 1993 Tennessee App LEXIS 109; 1993 WL 21983 (3 Feb 1993) (§ 2[b], 3)

    Satalino v Satalino, No. 11440-86 (Nassau County Sup Court, New York, 10 Oct 1990), Trial (Feb 1991), p 82. (Details at ASH) (§ 4)

    Potter v Potter, Lawyer's Weekly No. MA-2953, 3 Mich Law Weekly 1468 (1989), and Mich L W 956 (Michigan App, 24 June 1991) (§ 4)

58. Products Liability: Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products, 36 ALR 5th 541 (25 March 1996) replacing 80 ALR2d 681 (1961) (See "Tobacco Hazards and Legal Liability," 12 Am Jur POF 345, and dangerous tobacco cases)

    Gilboy v American Tobacco Co, 582 So 2d 1263; CCH Prod Liab Rep ¶ 12854; 36 ALR 5th 899 (La, 21 June 1991) (smokers' rights case, citing case law on manufacturers' absolute liability for ultrahazardous products, e.g., Halphen v Johns-Manville Sales Corp, 484 So 2d 110 (La, 24 Feb 1986), 737 F2d 462 and 752 F2d 124

59. Assault and Battery: Secondary Smoke As Battery, 46 ALR 5th 813 (14 April 1997) (examples of dangerous-smokers cases; see also 58 ALR3d 662-667, supra.)

    Richardson v Hennly, 209 Ga App 868, 871; 434 SE2d 772, 774-5 (15 July 1993)
    Pechan v Dyna Prog Inc, 251 Ill App 3d 1072; 190 Ill Dec 698; 622 NE2d 108; 8 IER Cas (BNA) 1793; 127 CCH LC § 57582 (19 Oct 1993)
    Leichtman v WLJ Jacor Communications, 92 Ohio App 3d 232; 634 NE2d 697; 46 ALR5th 939; 9.1 TPLR 2.17 (26 Jan 1994)
    Hennly v Richardson, 262 Ga 355; 444 SE2d 317; 1994 Ga LEXIS 463, 94 Fulton County DR 2140; 3 AD Cas 617; 10 BNA EIR Cas 1780 (27 June 1994) recon den 14 July 1994). SCB: 209 Ga App 868, 871; 434 SE2d 772, 774-5

60. Validity, Construction, and Application of Restrictions on the Use or Possession of Tobacco Products in Correctional Facilities, 66 ALR5th 237-268 (24 April 1999)

    Cruiess v Matty, 1987 WL 13348 (ED Pa, 1987) (§ 1[a] p 244) (Details)
    Austin v Lehman, 893 F Supp 448 (ED Pa, 6 July 1995) (§ 1[a] p 244)

    Reynolds v Bucks, 833 F Supp 518 (ED Pa, 1 Oct 1993) (§ 3 p 248; § 6[b] p 264)
    Washington v Tinsley, 809 F Supp 504 (SD Texas, 1992) (§ 3 p 249; § 5[a] p 256; § 6[a] p 260; § 7 p 266; § 9 p 267)
    Beauchamp v Sullivan, 21 F3d 789 (CA 7, 21 March 1994) (§3 p 249; § 6[a] p 260)
    Grass v Sargent, 903 F2d 1206 (CA 8, 29 May 1990) (§ 3 p 250; § 5[a] p 254)
    Jeffries v Reed, 631 F Supp 1212 (ED Wash, 27 March 1986) (§ 3 p 250) (Details)
    Jackson v Burns, 89 F3d 850 (CA 10, 28 June 1996) (§ 3 p 250, 252; § 5[a] p 255)
    Johnson v Saffle, 1998 WL 792071 (CA 10, 1998) (§ 3 p 251)
    Doughty v Board of County Com'rs for County of Weld, State of Colorado, 731 F Supp 423, 424 (D Col, 5 June 1989) (§ 3, p 251; § 5[a] p 255) [Excerpt]
    Elliott v Board of Weld County Com'rs, 796 P2d 71 (Colorado App, 5 July 1990) (§ 3 p 251; § 5[a] p 255; § 6[a] p 261)
    Stanfield v Hay, 849 SW2d 551 (Ky App, 28 Aug and 13 Nov 1992) (§ 3 p 252; § 5[a] p 256; § 6[d] p 265)
    Jarrett v Westchester County Dep't of Health, 166 Misc 2d 777; 638 NYS2d 269 (27 Feb 1995) (§ 3 p 252; § 6[a] p 261)
    House of Corrections Block Representatives Comm v Creamer, 1998 WL 242663 (ED Pa, 1998) (§ 3 p 253; § 5[a] p 256; § 5[b] p 257; § 6[a] p 263; § 7 p 266)

    Alley v State, 1997 WL 695590 (D Kansas, 1997) (§ 4 p 253)

    State ex rel Kincaid v Parsons, 191 W Va 608; 447 SE2d 543 (14 July 1994) (§ 5[a] p 257; § 5[b] p 258)
    State ex rel White v Parsons, 199 W Va 1; 483 SE2d 1; 66 ALR5th 737 (9 Dec 1996) (§ 5[a] p 257; § 5[b] p 258)

    Reysack v State 440 NW2d 392 (Iowa, 17 May 1989) (§ 5[c] p 259) (Details)

    Webber v Crabtree, 158 F3d 460 (CA 9, Ore, 8 Oct 1998) (§ 6[a] p 261)
    Jarrett v Westchester County Dep't of Health, 169 Misc 2d 320; 646 NYS2d 2239 (24 Jan 1996) (§ 6[a] p 262; § 6[b] p 263)

    Shockey v Winfield, 97 Ohio App 3d 409; 646 NE2d 911 (16 Nov 1994) (§ 6[b] p 264)

    Women Prisoners of District of Columbia Dep't of Corrections v District of Columbia, 877 F Supp 634; 98 Ed Law Rep 681 (D DC, 13 Dec 1994) vacated / modified in part on other grounds 899 F Supp 659; 104 Ed Law Rep 213 (DC 1995) remanded on other grounds, 93 F3d 910; 113 Ed Law Rep 30 (CADC 1996) reh den (14 Nov 1996) cert den 117 S Ct 1552; 137 L Ed 2d 701 (1997) remanded on other grounds, 93 F3d 910; 113 Ed Law Rep 30 (CADC, 1996) (§ 6[c] p 265)

    Crawford County v Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 659 A2d 1078 (26 May 1995) app gr 542 Pa 676; 668 A2d 1138 (1995) app dism as improvidently granted 543 Pa 482; 672 A2d 1318 (1996) (§ 10 p 268)

ALR is the abbreviation for American Law Reports. They are published by the Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Co, Rochester, New York. ALRs are like encyclopedias. They summarize the court cases on the subject to the extent that the ALR writers know it.

Warning: Unlike encyclopedia publishers, the ALR publisher does NOT have subject matter experts write the material. Instead, the ALR writers are laymen, mere attorneys who write on this subject one day, then a totally different subject another day, so the material lacks subject matter medical understanding. The lay ALR writers are simply repeating what judges said. If judges wrote decisions declaring the earth flat, the ALR writers, laymen unaware of scientific and medical facts, would simply summarize the judges' words, quite unaware of the fact that the judges' remarks were blatant nonsense. (If aware, ALR writers discreetly, prudently do not say so).

If you decide to go to a law library to read the full text of the ALRs, keep this fact in mind. And remember also, on the tobacco subject, there is bribery in the legislative and judicial system, so some laws and decisions (though of course not all) being alluded to or summarized in the ALRs are flatly wrong (contrary to medical fact), and deliberately so.

For example, in cases involving product liability or "smoke-free" issues, you will find that the cases, thus the summaries, almost invariably do NOT list the gateway drug aspect, the tobacco role in alcoholism, crime, and suicide, cigarettes' toxic chemicals, the synergistic combination effect of smoker addiction, mental disorder and brain damage, impairing reasoning, ethical and impulse controls, and the self-defense reflex, nor the "right to pure and fresh air, nor standard court precedents on poisoning and murder.

As in the Galileo flat earth case, most legislators and judges generally prefer to spout off, mouth off, their own personal idiosyncratic ideas and bizarre notions, as they feel it is a "constraint" to be forced to confine themselves to scientific or medical fact, even when cited in the scientific or medical literature for centuries! (There are exceptions, competent-educated-honest legislators and judges, but they are rare, so rare that I have never found a case where a law or judge cited a herein-listed aspect, e.g., smoker mental disorder, in the above-cited detail, although sometimes, as a matter almost of coincidence, correct decisions are issued, superficially making a sentence or two allusion to some medical fact of the above type).

To learn the truth, pursuant to medical fact as distinct from judicial fiction, read medical journals and books. And click on the links offering more data wherever provided above.

Discussion Group: More Participants Welcome