Legal Opinion · Dissent

Aspinall v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided August 13, 2004Published

1DissentCordy, J.

(dissenting, with whom Ireland and Cowin, JJ., join). This is a case about the propriety of a class certification decision. The issue is not, as the court puts it, “whether the marketing of Marlboro Lights as ‘light’ cigarettes that deliver ‘lower tar and nicotine’ may be challenged in a class action” under G. L. c. 93A, ante at 382; of course it may (emphasis added). The issue is whether this class of plaintiffs may bring that challenge. The proper focus in this case is, therefore, the constituency of the plaintiff class.

The plaintiff class certified by the motion judge consists of…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Basic Inc. v. LevinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  2. Leardi v. BrownMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
  3. Van Dyke v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983
  4. Baldassari v. Public Finance TrustMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
  5. Kaufman v. I-Stat Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2000

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API