Sort by: Date added | Date Published | Most Viewed

Headlines Tagged with Court Documents 1,309 headlines found

11 Views

[California, Illinois, New York] IN RE FONTEM US, INC. CONSUMER CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OR RECONSIDERATION . . . (PDF)

Plaintiffs respectfully submit that clarification is necessary to address an internal contradiction in the Order concerning preemption by the FDA’s Final Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as Amende
Amazon CloudFront
added Nov 24, 2016 00:53
11 Views

[Illinois] Tobacco Fees Spread All The Way To A Chicago Alderman, Feds Allege

A recently unsealed indictment in Chicago shows just how far money from 1998′s $200 billion master tobacco settlement with the states spread. Federal authorities have charged former Chicago alderman Edward “Fast Eddie” Vdolyak with trying to help anothe
Forbes
added Nov 21, 2016 23:47
6 Views

USA v Philip Morris, et. al.: ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES (PDF)

Nothing in this Court’s ruling required the removal of the phrase “Here is the truth”...Manufacturers’ proposal to “return to the drawing board and start the process all over again” made it “obvious that Defendants are, once again, attempting to stall any
Amazon CloudFront
added Nov 18, 2016 21:32
10 Views

[Florida] DUBINSKY vs. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, et al.: ORDER GRANTING PHILIP MORRIS USA INC.'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER REQUIRING PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. TO PAY FEES AND EXPENSES

Plaintiff's Motion for a Protective Order to prevent any further deposition of Dr. Scheinbart is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Counsel for Philip Morris USA Inc. shall have one (1) additional hour of time for questioning Dr. Sc
Amazon CloudFront
added Nov 17, 2016 23:19
9 Views

[Florida] DUBINSKY vs. R.J. REYNOLDS, et. al.: PHILIP MORRIS USA’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER REQUIRING PHILIP MORRIS USA TO PAY FEES AND EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONTINUED DEPOSITION OF DR. LEE SCHEINBART (PDF)

Plaintiff’s counsel has already used the Court’s ruling as a platform to disparage Mr. Suarez (and all of Defendants’ lawyers) publicly, accusing him of “egregious” and “unprofessional” behavior to reporters who published articles in two prominent trad
Amazon CloudFront
added Nov 17, 2016 23:11
5 Views

[California] FORSYTH v MPAA: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION TO DISMISS (PDF)

Defendants move to strike Forsyth’s claims pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute, and in the alternative move to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. For the reasons that follow, the motions will be granted.
DocumentCloud.org
added Nov 11, 2016 21:02
11 Views

[Florida] CRANE CO., R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., and HOLLINGSWORTH & VOSE CO., Appellants, v. RICHARD DELISLE and ALINE DELISLE, his wife, Appellees. (PDF)

As we are reversing for a new trial for R.J. Reynolds based on the improper admission of the expert testimony, the new trial should include the issue of damages because of the foregoing analysis. At a new trial, the court should also reconsider t
Amazon CloudFront
added Nov 11, 2016 13:05
2 Views

[California] FORSYTH v MPAA: DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE POST-HEARING BRIEF, Nov 7, 2016

The sole justification Plaintiff offers for his post-hearing brief is counsel’s opinion that he could have done a better job articulating his arguments at the hearing. That is not a valid justification. If it were, there would be no end to the briefs par
Tobacco On Trial
added Nov 8, 2016 23:54
6 Views

CEI v DOT: PETITIONER REPLY BRIEF filed by Competitive Enterprise Institute, Consumer Advocates for Smokefree Alternatives Association and Gordon Cummings, Nov 4, 2016

DOT’s claim that e-cigarettes pose a safety threat to airline passengers rests on sheer speculation—studies that state only that more research is needed. DOT attempts to sidestep this issue by expressly resting its authority on “passenger discomfort, whic
Tobacco On Trial
added Nov 7, 2016 21:50
9 Views

[California] FORSYTH v MPAA: PLAINTIFF’S [PROPOSED] POSTHEARING BRIEF, Nov 3, 2016

If the speech does not qualify as speech in furtherance of an issue of “public interest” under 425.16 (e)(3) and (4), defendants fail to satisfy the first prong of the analysis. For the reasons stated in the Response at 9-16, the ratings are quintessentia
Tobacco On Trial
added Nov 3, 2016 22:27
Sign up for daily headlines All Headlines Featured Headlines U.S. Headlines International Headlines