1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 561 F.3d
  5. 561 F.3d 964 (2009)
 

POOSHS v. PHILLIP MORRIS USA, INC.

No. 08-16338.

561 F.3d 964 (2009)

Nikki POOSHS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PHILLIP MORRIS USA, INC.; Philip Morris Companies, Inc. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc.; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; Nabisco Group Holdings Corp.; Nabisco Inc.; Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation, individually and as successor by merger to The American Tobacco Company and its predecessors in interest; British American Tobacco Company PLC; Lorillard Tobacco Company; Lorillard Inc.; Liggett Group Incorporated; Liggett & Myers Inc.; Liggett and Myers Tobacco Company; Vector Group LTD.; Hill & Knowlton Inc Tobacco Institute, Inc.; Council for Tobacco Research USA Incorporated; DNA Plant Technology, Corporation; Safeway Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

April 1, 2009.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

David Wayne Fermino, James P. Nevin, Gilbert L. Purcell, Brayton Purcell, LLP, Novato, CA, for Nikki Pooshs.

Daniel Paul Collins, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Phillip Morris.

Jenny Brown, Alicia J. Donahue, Chris Johnson, Esquire, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Phillip Morris and Lorillard Tobacco Company.

James Lee Dumas, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Phillip Morris, Lorillard Tobacco Company and Safeway, Inc.

Paul Crist, Ashlie Case, Jones Day, Cleveland, OH, Peter N. Larson, Jones Day, San Francisco, CA, for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and for Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation.

Kevin Underhill, Shook Hardy & Bacon, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Lorillard Tobacco Company.

Stanley G. Roman, Tracy M. Clements, Krieg Keller Sloan Reilley & Roman, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Hill & Knowlton, Inc.

J. Leah Castella, McDonough Holland & Allen PC, Oakland, CA, Raymond C. Marshall, bingham mccutchen, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for DNA Plant Technology Corp.

Before: B. FLETCHER and M. MARGARET McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAM T. HART, District Judge.

ORDER CERTIFYING THE QUESTION TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

PER CURIAM:

ORDER

We certify to the California Supreme Court the questions set forth in Part II of this order. The answer to the certified questions depend upon California law, and the answers are determinative to the outcome of the present appeal. We find no clear controlling precedent in the decisions of the California Supreme Court. The answer provided by the California Supreme...

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