Cases

190 S.W.3d 368 (2005) Dayna CRAFT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. PHILIP MORRIS COMPANIES, INC., and Philip Morris Incorporated, Defendants/Appellants. No. ED 85142. Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two. August 16, 2005. Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer Denied September 22, 2005.

Kaplan, Mitchell H., J. The plaintiffs, Lori Aspinall5 and Thomas Geanacopoulos, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated plaintiffs, now certified, filed this action against the defendant6 Philip Morris USA, Inc. (Philip Morris), alleging unjust enrichment7 and violations of G.L.c. 93A arising from Philip Morris’s use of the

Lauriat, Peter M., J. In this fourteen-year-old class action, plaintiffs Lori Aspinall and Thomas Geanacopoulos, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (the “plaintiffs”), have now moved for partial summary judgment against defendants Philip Morris USA (“Philip Morris”) and Altria Group, Inc. (“Altria”) (collectively, the “defendants”). The plaintiffs urge the court to apply the doctrine of non-mutual offensiv

346 F.Supp.2d 460 (2004) Edward TOCKER, Plaintiff v. PHILIP MORRIS COMPANIES INC. a/k/a Altria Group, Inc.; Kraft Foods Inc.; General Foods Corp., Defendants No. 03 CIV. 5275(SCR). United States District Court, S.D. New York. September 30, 2004. *462 Edward Tocker, Valhalla, NY, pro se. Michael J. DiMattia, McGuire Woods L

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed March 27, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D21-2214 Lower Tribunal No. 17-18509 ________________ Philip Morris USA Inc., Appellant,

CIKLIN, C.J. David Cohen (“the plaintiff’) appeals the final judgment entered in favor of one of the defendants, Philip Morris USA, Inc. (“Philip Morris”), and the order granting the remaining defendants a new trial. He argues that the trial court erred in finding that he did not put forward sufficient evidence of causation as to Philip Morris, and that the trial court erred in finding a new trial was warranted based on clos

ORDER Carr, Senior United States District Judge1 This is an “Engle -progeny”2 lawsuit by Plaintiff Judith Berger (“Mrs. Berger”), ■ a former smoker of cigarettes, against the manufacturer of those cigarettes, Defendant Philip Morris USA, Inc. (“PM USA”). Mrs. Berger, who now suffers from advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (“CO

Lauriat, Peter M., J. Lori Aspinall and Thomas Geanacopoulos (“the plaintiffs”) have brought this class action on behalf of themselves and all other purchasers of Marlboro Lights cigarettes in Massachusetts, pursuant to G.L.c. 93A, §9(2), for damages arising from the alleged deceptive advertising of Marlboro Light cigarettes by the defendants, Philip Morris Companies, Inc., and Philip Morris Inc. (“the defendants”), as “light” c

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 99-2496 (PLF) ) PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. et al.,

OPINION FABE, Chief Justice. I. INTRODUCTION Dolores Hunter, the personal representative of the estate of Benjamin G. Francis, appeals from a series of orders following a jury verdict in a wrongful death, products liability, and fraud action against Philip Morris USA Inc. resulting from Francis's death from lung cancer. Following the ve

SENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judge: In 2006, the district court found that Appellant cigarette manufacturers had for decades conspired to deny the health effects of smoking in violation of RICO. United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 449 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006) (“Liability Opinion”). As a remedy, the court ordered Appellants to disseminat

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 99-2496 (PLF) ) PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. et al., )

RHONDA K. WOOD, Associate Justice I,Class certification is proper if six, rule-based prerequisites are satisfied. Two of those prerequisites are at issue in this case: predominance and superiority. Another issue is whether the elass is ascertainable. Here, the class plaintiffs alleged that Philip Morris deceived them by advertising Marlboro Lights as being safer and having less tar and nicotine than oth

TATEL, Circuit Judge: This is the latest appeal in the government’s long-running RICO case against the nation’s major cigarette manufacturers. Ten years ago, the district court issued a comprehensive remedial order, which included a requirement that defendants and their successors televise “corrective statements” about the dangers of smoking. Eight years later, one defendant, R.J.

*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAP-XX-XXXXXXX 06-AUG-2026 09:24 AM Dkt. 46 OP

*123 MEMORANDUM OPINION Gladys Kessler, United States District Judge More than 15 years ago, the United States filed this RICO action against the major cigarette manufacturers operating in 1999. In 2006, after years of discovery, pre-trial litigation, and a nine-month bench trial,

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge TATEL. TATEL, Circuit Judge: In this appeal, the fifth in this long-running RICO case against the nation’s cigarette manufacturers, defendants challenge a district court order requiring that they add two statements to their cigarette packages and advertisements: an announcement that a federal court has ruled that they “deliberately deceived the American publ

DAMOORGIAN, C.J. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (“PM USA”), Lorillard Tobacco Company (“Lorillard”) and Liggett Group, LLC (“Liggett”) (collectively referred to as the “Tobacco Companies”) appeal the trial court’s final judgment entered in favor of Mary Tullo, as surviving spouse and personal representative of the estate of her deceased husband, Dominick Tullo. The Tobacco Companies raise three issues on appeal. First, they contend t

MEMORANDUM OPINION Gladys Kessler, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Defendants R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (“RJRT”) and Lorillard Tobacco *33 Company (“Lorillard”) (collectively, “Defendants”)

TATEL, Circuit Judge: In this appeal, the fifth in this long-running RICO case .against the nation’s cigarette manufacturers, defendants challenge a district court order requiring that they add two statements to their cigarette packages and advertisements: an announcement that a federal court has ruled that they “deliberately deceived the American public” about the dangers of ci