UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
May 23, 2003.
May 23, 2003.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Sharon Y. Eubanks, Stephen D. Brady, Frank J. Marine, Gregory C.J. Lisa, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for U.S.
David S. Eggert, Jonathan L. Stern, Arnold & Porter, Washington, DC, Timothy M. Broas, Dan K. Webb, pro hac vice, Thomas J. Frederick, Winston & Strawn, Chicago, IL, for Philip Morris USA, Inc., Altria Group, Inc.
Robert Francis McDermott, Jr., Jonathan M. Redgrave, Robert H. Klonoff, Michael A. Carvin, Michael S. Fried, Todd R. Geremia, Jones Day, Washington, DC, Robert C. Weber, pro hac vice, Paul Crist, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Cleveland, OH, for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
David M. Bernick, Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago, IL, Kenneth N. Bass, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, Washington, DC, Stephen R. Patton, for Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (individually, and as successor in interest to The American Tobacco Company).
Matthew David Schwartz, Edward Craig Schmidt, Thompson Coburn, LLP, Washington, DC, Michael B. Minton, J. William Newbold, Richard, Richard Paul Cassetta, pro hac vice, Thompson Coburn, LLP, St. Louis, MO, for Lorillard Tobacco Co.
Aaron H. Marks, pro hac vice, Nancy E. Straub, pro hac vice, Leonard A. Feiwus, pro hac vice, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres Friedman, L.L.P., New York City, for Liggett Group, Inc.
Timothy M. Hughes, pro hac vice, Garyowen P. Morrisroe, Chadbourne & PArke, New York City, for British American Tobacco (investments) Ltd.
Steven Klugman, Steven S. Michaels, pro hac vice, Debevoise & Plimpton, New York City, for Council for Tobacco Research-USA, Inc.
James Alexander Goold, Covington & Burling, Washington, DC, for Tobacco Institute, Inc.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
KESSLER, District Judge.
This matter is now before the Court on Joint Defendants'1 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Advertising, Marketing, Promotion, and Warning Claims and the United States' Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Affirmative Defenses. The Defendants2 seek summary judgment as to the United States' advertising, marketing, promotion and warning...
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.
