PHILIP MORRIS INC., R.R. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., Lorillard Tobacco Co., Plaintiffs,
v.
Richard BLUMENTHAL, Attorney General of Connecticut, Defendant.
United States District Court, D. Connecticut.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
December 23, 1996.
December 23, 1996.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Benjamin A. Solnit, Margaret A. Little, William R. Murphy, Robert K. Ciulla, Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn, New Haven, Connecticut, Peter C. Hein, Barbara Robbins, Ben M. Germana, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York City, for Plaintiff, Philip Morris Inc.
Edward F. Hennessey, David T. Ryan, Brien P. Horan, Dennis F. Kerrigan, Jr., Robinson & Cole, Hartford, Connecticut, Donald B. Ayer, Robert F. McDermott, Jr., Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
Andrew R. McGaan, David M. Bernick, Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago, Illinois, Francis H. Morrison, III, James H. Rotondo, Athena Roxene Tsakanikas, Day, Berry & Howard, Hartford, Connecticut, Marjorie Press Lindblom, Kirkland & Ellis, New York City, for Plaintiff, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
William R. Murphy, Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn, New Haven, Connecticut, James R. Fogarty, Lawrence F. Reilly, Andrew P. Nemiroff, Epstein Fogarty Cohen & Selby, Greenwich, Connecticut, Gael Mahony, Hill & Barlow, Boston, Massachusetts, for Plaintiff, Lorillard Tobacco Co.
David S. Golub, Jonathan M. Levine, Silver, Golub & Teitell, Stamford, Connecticut, Gregory T. D'Auria, Jane R. Rosenberg, Eliot D. Prescott, Attorney General's Office, Hartford, Connecticut, Andrew P. Nemiroff, Epstein Fogarty Cohen & Selby, Greenwich, Connecticut, Stephen R. Park, Attorney General's Office, Anti-Trust, Consumer Protection, Hartford, Connecticut, William M. Rubenstein, Attorney General's Office, Hartford, Connecticut, for Defendant, Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General.
United States District Court, D. Connecticut.
RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS
DORSEY, Chief Judge.
Defendant moves to dismiss under the Younger v. Harris abstention doctrine and pursuant to the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283. For the reasons below, defendant's motion is granted.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs ("Tobacco Companies") filed suit in district court (the "present action") to enjoin defendant (the "Attorney General") from filing an impending suit in state court...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
