Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
- Law360
- Law360 UK
- Law360 Pulse
- Law360 Employment Authority
- Law360 Tax Authority
- Law360 Insurance Authority
- Law360 Real Estate Authority
- Law360 Healthcare Authority
- Law360 Bankruptcy Authority
- Products
- Lexis®
- Law360 In-Depth
- Law360 Podcasts
- Rankings
- Regional Powerhouses
- Law360's MVPs
- Women in Law Report
- Law360 400
- Diversity Snapshot
- Practice Groups of the Year
- Rising Stars
- Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar
- Sections
- Adv. Search & Platform Tools
- About all sections
- Browse all sections
- Banking
- Bankruptcy
- Class Action
- Competition
- Employment
- Energy
- Expert Analysis
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property
- Product Liability
- Securities
- Beta Tools
- Track docs
- Track attorneys
- Track judges
USA v. Philip Morris USA Inc., et al
Case Number:
16-5101
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Companies
- Altria Group Inc.
- American Cancer Society Inc.
- American Heart Association
- British American Tobacco PLC
- GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Ltd.
- Impax Laboratories, Inc.
- ITG Brands LLC
- Novartis AG
- Pfizer Inc.
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Inc.
Sectors & Industries:
-
February 14, 2017
Tobacco Cos. Tell DC Circ. New Health Warnings Go Too Far
Philip Morris and other tobacco giants pressured a D.C. Circuit panel on Tuesday to tone down the language of health and safety statements they were ordered to make over a decade ago about their cigarettes, arguing that the latest warnings sought by the government violate the First Amendment.
-
November 17, 2016
Keep Cigarette Warning Order Intact, DC Circ. Told
The federal government on Wednesday defended a lower court's decision regarding certain corrective statements Philip Morris and other tobacco giants must make about the health and safety of their cigarettes, urging the D.C. Circuit to reject the companies' challenges to the wording.
-
September 12, 2016
Tobacco Cos. Still Unhappy With Cigarette Warnings Order
Philip Morris and other tobacco companies on Friday told the D.C. Circuit that a lower court continues to flout the panel's past decisions regarding public statements about their past cigarette advertising, saying that the court's revisions to the statements violate the First Amendment.