# Eiser v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 28, 2007 · 595 Pa. 366

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9630629

## Case

- **Full name:** Lois EISER, Administratrix of the Estate of William M. Eiser and Lois Eiser, Individually, Appellants v. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION and the Tobacco Institute, Appellees
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 28, 2007
- **Citations:** 595 Pa. 366; 938 A.2d 417; 2007 Pa. LEXIS 2936
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Saylor
- **Judges:** Cappy, Castille, Saylor, Eakin, Baer, Baldwin, Fitzgerald
- **Cited by:** 61 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9630629

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a voluminous Rule 1925(b) statement is not a basis for waiver when the appellant narrowed the issues in his statement of questions involved in his brief, there was no “bad faith” or “attempt to thwart the appellate process” by the appellant, and ultimately there w…
- stating that “while the number of issues raised in the subject Rule 1925(b) statement may have been the result of a poorly reasoned appellate strategy, because the trial court did not find that appellants acted in bad faith, there was no violation of a Rule of Appellate Proced…
- holding that identifying twenty-four issues, in a complicated, multi-count case against many defendants that involved extensive pre-trial proceedings and a two-week trial, did not result in waiver where there was no indication that the appellant acted in bad faith
- finding that appellants had preserved their claims, despite raising 24 issues with sub-issues, because the appellants had “brought forth a complicated multi-count lawsuit with numerous defendants resulting in many trial court rulings.”
- stating that “the number of issues raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement does not, without more, provide a basis upon which to deny appellate review where an appeal otherwise complies with the mandate of appellate practice”

## Opinion text

*387 Justice SAYLOR,
Concurring.
Other than by application of the doctrine of stare decisis, I have not supported the strict waiver approach deriving from Lord, and I do not support an expansion of that doctrine. In this case, I believe that the trial and intermediate appellate court had reasonable alternatives short of the drastic sanction of outright dismissal to address the apparent lack of conciseness in the statement of matters complained of on appeal. Accordingly, I support the plurality’s ultimate disposition.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9630629. Public record. Not legal advice.