# Theresa Graham v. R.J Reynolds Tobacco Company

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 18, 2017 · 857 F.3d 1169

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9875522

## Case

- **Full name:** Theresa GRAHAM, as PR of Faye Dale Graham, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Individually and as Successor by Merger to the Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation and the American Tobacco Company, Philip Morris USA, Inc., Defendants-Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** May 18, 2017
- **Citations:** 857 F.3d 1169; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8718; 2017 WL 2176488
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Wilson
- **Judges:** Tjoflat, Hull, Marcus, Wilson, Pryor, Martin, Jordan, Rosenbaum, Carnes
- **Nature of suit:** REH
- **Cited by:** 49 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/9875522

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- reasoning that the fact that “the express-preemption provi- sion” at issue “does not cover the” substance of the plaintiffs’ claims “supports an inference that there is no implied preemption of those” claims
- explaining that “the central features of due process” are “no- tice” and “an opportunity to be heard”

## Opinion text

WILSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
At its most fundamental level, the Due Process Clause guarantees an aggrieved party notice and “the opportunity to present his case and have its merits fairly judged.” See Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 428, 433 , 102 S.Ct. 1148, 1153, 1156 , 71 L.Ed.2d 265 (1982). The defendants have no doubt been provided notice and some degree of opportunity to be heard in court, but like Judge Tjoflat, I am not content that the use of the Engle *1315 jury’s highly generalized findings in other forums meets “the minimum procedural requirements of the ... Due Process Clause in order to qualify for ... full faith and credit.” See Kremer v. Chem. Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 481 , 102 S.Ct. 1888 , 1897-98, 72 L.Ed.2d 262 (1982). Because such a violation requires remand, I see no need to determine whether the Engle findings are preempted by federal law.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9875522. Public record. Not legal advice.