morning ladies and gentlemen our first case of the morning is a jenna number thirteen case one one seven six eight seven prize individually at all adverse philip morris are you ready to proceed when this court entered its judgment in price one it was correct and that judgment is correct today more than two years from this court's judgment and more than two years from the issuance of the mandate this court's judg believe that that's of no matter because it was filed within two years the final entry of the order of the trial  following the dictates of this court's judg to show that this court's judgment in price wrong of course neither of these were in existence at the time of trial and therefore under traditional formulations of the motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence would not support find it was not because it was required considered in the interest of justice but that it seems to me is a difference of opinion the first time plaintiffs raise the issue of whether the f t c head or head not authorized philip morris to advertise their cigarettes as they no time during the trial but surely that what was important surely the plaintiff knew of that possibility or he raised to do fishing for here or cases would seem to say that is not diligence wired pursuing a motion for newly discovered evidence then get to file a motion for it we discovered evidence and do we get to from the latest f t c as that evidence and ten billion dollar present government includes countless countless smokers who had no conceivable right to have smokers have no place that they would never see they would have purchased rights anyway or if critical issue here is whether the federal government ever authorize the most massive fraud in american history and that was the fraud that philip morris perpetrated were decades on smokers who were led to believe that light cigarettes were safer or healthier for them in price one that issue came up in trial because philip morris as part of its a formative defense introduced the started and ask you what authority is there whether it's constitutional or statutory or case common law that would allow a lower court to set aside a judgment of the higher court well it's not setting aside the judgment  e reasons and that is the final judgment note the cases that talk about you know one as a matter of justice chief justice harman do so on the basis of the substance it's not about correcting an error in opinion it's about correcting in erroneous judgment and that's what the circuit court was charged with doing because i think if we look at this just clear right there's no question that had this court known about the f t c refin positions it couldn't intended to authorize light cigarette descriptors or low tar and nicotine scribblers and so i think if we just sort of step back and look at this from the from the forty thousand foot view to fourteen no one is  this is the first time we're aware of a situation where it was a plurality decision of this word it was later shown to be incorrect on the basis of a subsequent event but that shouldn't matter if you take into account plain language and purpose of the provision now i'd like to direct my follow up to justice karmas question should this case have been filed is the motion to recall the mandate in this court no because it was a final judgment and the reason why that's important is because the same term is used for normal appeals so what philip morris is asking in a number of different instances they're asking you to create special exceptions to your normal  one this is one of them they want a different rule for what constitutes a final judgment when you know from every appeal i mean is this triggered for every appeal you've got a normal rule or what constitutes a final good word that's one that a circuit court could wait years after they get the directions from this court to order a certain kind of judgment and extensionally extend the time periods for everything indefinitely what happens to finality of judgments well the conditions must be satisfied or will be granted we notwithstanding whether the evidence was newly discovered or new evidence and if you think about it it's a lot because if we were come up with a new way to do you say d n a testing descriptors were false and deceptive were all customers no one received the safer cigarette that philip morris prompts and so the question it this point in the trial was whether the scientific evidence showed what consequence flowed from smoking light cigarettes and it was beyond any scientific dispute that whites are at least as dangerous as a regulars d testified that all smokers fully compensate doctor for wrong testified that philip morris had intentionally designed the cigarettes so that by the filter every smoker would compensate  survey was done several years after the classic uncertified fact he depositions from the class members in the case had been done and so it would be odd to suppose that that would overcome that because the market share for whites went from zero to over eight percent over a thirty year period but the epidemiological evidence showed no reduction in cancer at all and so from both design perspective the evidence at trial that was it used demonstrated that the overriding health issue was one that everyone would have understood from the cigarettes and that was now the question of damages has been mention and again the arguments that are immense by philip morris ignore what the standard review is which is the manifest weight of the evidence looking at our valuation of the person yet what she already were when she made the purchase it's not fair market value it's not out of pocket expenses it's about whether the the question the question is how do you get it evidence that those two areas value the best evidence was the dr denis or and that survey actually asked light cigarette smokers what value would you  was not safe and so the question once you value a damages your parking about purchases in the state of seven point six or seven billion dollars over the period of class and where there is no by coming up with a different way of looking at benefit of the bargain and the chains again if you look at the manifest weight of the evidence the evidence is very clear that the energy were substantial and  role of taxes smokers page average fifty three cents for cigarettes he acknowledged having written those words and when he did i think the circuit judge quite properly used the contrast evidence between trial court's judgment original judgment so that the consumers of illinois can finally be compensated thank you