Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals panel grills parties on Chapter 93A jury instructions in cigarette‑case appeal
Summary
Appellant argued the jury instructions and verdict form in a cigarette/93A case were deficient and that a directional 'stop here' omission forced the jury to resolve a statutory claim on the wrong basis; Philip Morris defended the instructions and argued several causes of action rise or fall together. The court recessed and took the case under advisement.
The panel heard a complex civil appeal in which the estate of Lorna Agnetti challenged jury instructions and the special verdict form in a case against Philip Morris, including a Chapter 93A claim and related common‑law causes of action.
Celine Humphreys, arguing for the appellant, focused first on the Chapter 93A instruction. She said the jury was not given a clear directive to stop if it had found against the common‑law causes of…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
