martindale.com
Legal Library
|
Search Results (1427) Documents on tobacco Show: results per page Sort by:  | Actual Injury (and Standing) Necessary Only for Class Representatives, Not Absent Class Members, under California's Section 17200
Donald M. Falk, John Nadolenco, Tai Lui Tan; Mayer Brown LLP;
Legal Alert/Article June 16, 2009, previously published on May 2009 Until California voters passed Proposition 64, anyone could sue on behalf of the "general public" using the unique representative action of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), the notorious Section 17200 of California's Business and Professions Code.
| | House Passes Bill Giving FDA Oversight of Tobacco Industry
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP;
Legal Alert/Article April 29, 2009, previously published on April 20, 2009 The House of Representatives has voted in favor of a bill that would give the Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate the tobacco industry.
| | Proposed Bill Would Give FDA Jurisdiction over Tobacco
Keller and Heckman LLP;
Legal Alert/Article April 28, 2009, previously published on April 9, 2009 The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA) on April 2, 2009.
| | Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Affirms Summary Judgment against Tobacco Company for False Advertising of "Light" Cigarettes
Beth I. Z. Boland, Brandon L. Bigelow, Carolyn French; Bingham McCutchen LLP;
Legal Alert/Article April 21, 2009, previously published on April 3, 2009 The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC") recently affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs in Aspinall v. Phillip Morris, Inc., No. SJC-09981, slip op. (Mar. 16, 2009), holding that a tobacco company had engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices in...
| | U.S. Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Oregon Tobacco Punitive Damages Award
Lori Irish Bauman; Ater Wynne LLP;
Legal Alert/Article April 7, 2009, previously published on March 31, 2009 Mayola Williams' products liability case has completed its third journey to the U.S. Supreme Court, as the Court today dismissed Philip Morris' appeal of a $79.5 million punitive damages award.
| | California Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument on In re Tobacco II Cases
Michael I. Begert, Janice W. Howe; Bingham McCutchen LLP;
Legal Alert/Article April 1, 2009, previously published on March 18, 2009 On March 3, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case which may determine the future viability of class action claims under California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").
|  | State Unfair Trade Practices Claims May Get Boost from Pre-Emption Ruling
Erick M. Sandler; Day Pitney LLP;
Legal Alert/Article February 25, 2009, previously published on February 6, 2009 A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision may weaken one line of defense against state unfair trade practices claims: federal pre-emption.
| | Navigating the 1925(b) Minefield of Waiver - The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Attempt to 'Clarify the Confusion and Quell the Consternation'
Kimberly Boyer-Cohen; Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin;
Legal Alert/Article February 13, 2009, previously published on June 2008 The myriad decisions of the intermediate appellate courts and trial courts regarding waiver under Rule 1925(b) have been characterized as causing "much consternation in the courts of this commonwealth."
| | High Court Green-Lights "Light" Cigarette Cases
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP;
Legal Alert/Article February 5, 2009, previously published on January 8, 2009 The Supreme Court has opened the door to a new wave of tobacco litigation, finding that smokers could sue cigarette makers for allegedly deceiving them about the dangers of "light" cigarettes.
| | Supreme Court Signals Return of Presumption against Federal Preemption of State Laws
Frank M. Hinman, David B. Salmons, Alison Hickey, Bryan Killian; Bingham McCutchen LLP;
Legal Alert/Article January 26, 2009, previously published on December 22, 2008 The United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Altria Group, Inc. v. Good, No. 07-562, holding that federal law did not preempt a state-law claim against cigarette manufacturers, relied in part on a presumption against federal preemption of state laws.
|
|