Legal Opinion
European Community v. RJR Nabisco, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided January 14, 2004No. 02-7325(L), 02-7330(CON), 02-7323PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs-appellants are the European Community (“EC”) and various of its member states (collectively, the “EC plaintiffs”), as well as certain Departments of the nation of Colombia (the “Departments of Colombia,” and collectively with the EC plaintiffs, “plaintiffs”).1 They appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Garaufís, J.), dismissing their complaints in three related suits against the defendants, tobacco product manufacturers Philip Morris, RJR Nabisco, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., British American…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Russello v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Garcia v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- United States v. Southwestern Cable Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
- United States v. CraftSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Carl West v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
- European Community v. RJR Nabisco, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2005
- The European Community, Acting on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of the Member States It Has Power to Represent, and the Kingdom of Belgium, Republic of Finland, French Republic, Hellenic Republic, Federal Republic of Germany, Italian Republic, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Portuguese Republic, and Kingdom of Spain, Individually v. Rjr Nabisco, Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco International, Inc., Rjr Acquisition Corp., F/k/a Nabisco Group Holdings Corp. And R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., Philip Morris International, Inc., Philip Morris Companies, Inc., Philip Morris Incorporated, D/B/A Philip Morris Products, Inc., and Philip Morris Duty Free, Inc., Department of Amazonas, Department of Antioquia, Department of Atlantico, Department of Bolivar, Department of Caqueta, Department of Casanare, Department of Cesar, Department of Choco, Department of Cordoba, Department of Cundinamarca, Department of Huila, Department of La Guajira, Department of Magdalena, Department of Meta, Department of Narino, Department of Norte De Santander, Department of Putumayo, Department of Quindio, Department of Risaralda, Department of Santader, Department of Sucre, Department of Tolima, Department of Valle Del Cauca, Department of Vaupes and Santa Fe De Bogota, Capital District v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., Philip Morris Incorporated, D/B/A Philip Morris Products, Inc., Philip Morris Latin America Sales Corporation, Philip Morris Duty Free, Inc., British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd., B.A.T. Industries, P.L.C., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, USA Batus Tobacco Services, Inc. And British American Tobacco (South America) Ltd., the European Community, Acting on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of the Member States It Has Power to Represent, and the Kingdom of Belgium, Republic of Finland, French Republic, Hellenic Republic, Federal Republic of Germany, Italian Republic, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Portuguese Republic, and Kingdom of Spain, Individually v. Japan Tobacco, Inc., Jt International Manufacturing America, Inc., Jti Duty-Free Usa, Inc., Jt International S.A., Japan Tobacco International U.S.A., Inc. And Premier Brands, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2004