1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. P.2d
  4. 998 P.2d
  5. 998 P.2d 1055 (2000)
 

STATE v. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP.

No. CV-99-0444-T/AP.

998 P.2d 1055 (2000)

196 Ariz. 382

STATE of Arizona, ex rel., Janet Napolitano, and Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, Plaintiffs-Appellees. v. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP.; American Tobacco Company; Lorillard Tobacco Company Inc.; Philip Morris Inc.; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.; United States Tobacco Company; British American Tobacco (Investments) Limited (fka British-American Tobacco Company Limited); Liggett & Meyers Inc., Defendants-Appellees. State of Arizona, ex rel., Janet Napolitano, and Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Apache County, Coconino County, Gila County, Graham County, Greenlee County, La Paz County, Maricopa County, Mohave County, Navajo County, Pinal County, Santa Cruz County, and Yuma County, political subdivisions of the State of Arizona, Intervenors-Appellants.

Supreme Court of Arizona, En Banc.

April 13, 2000.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Janet A. Napolitano, Attorney General By Janet A. Napolitano and Tom Prose, Phoenix, Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Hagens & Berman, P.S. By Steve W. Berman and Andrew M. Volk, Seattle WA, Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Hagens, Berman & Mitchell By Steven C. Mitchell, Phoenix, Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Steptoe & Johnson L.L.P. By Scot C. Stirling, Phoenix, Attorneys for Intervenors-Appellants.

Van O'Steen & Partners By Paul D. Friedman and Richard L. Green, Phoenix, Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Osborn Maledon, P.A. By William J. Maledon and Dawn L. Dauphine, Phoenix, Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees.

Richard M. Romley, Maricopa County Attorney By Cleon M. Duke, Phoenix, Sacks Tierney, P.A. By David C. Tierney, Scottsdale and Helm & Kyle, Ltd. By John D. Helm and Roberta S. Livesay, Tempe and Ryan, Woodrow & Rapp, P.L.C. By Ian A. Macpherson, Phoenix, Attorneys for Intervenors-Appellants.

O P I N I O N

ZLAKET, Chief Justice.

¶ 1 We are asked to decide whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion to intervene filed nearly two and one-half years after this litigation began, and fifteen days after a consent decree and final judgment were entered. We hold that it did not.

¶ 2 On August 20, 1996, the State of Arizona and the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) ("the State") filed suit against...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

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.

Citing Cases