The ruling stemmed from a tobacco trial, during which a plaintiff’s lawyer referenced Holocaust movie “Schindler’s List.” Photo: ShotShare/iStockphoto.com.
A South Florida lawyer has a recurring problem with inflammatory arguments, according to a ruling from the Fourth District Court of Appeal that condemned his “egregiously improper” closing statements during a tobacco trial.
The appellate panel found the comments twice likened Big Tobacco to a “torturous authoritarian regime” instead of sticking to facts and evidence.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
