Legal Opinion

Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided October 22, 2015No. CC 0211-11819; CA A137297; SC S061745PublishedCited by 60 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*90LINDER, J.

Plaintiffs are two individuals who purchased Marlboro Light cigarettes in Oregon. Defendant Philip Morris is the company that manufactures, markets, and sells Marlboro Lights. Plaintiffs brought this action under Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA),1 alleging that defendant misrepresented that Marlboro Lights would deliver less tar and nicotine than regular Marlboros and that, as a result of that misrepresentation, plaintiffs suffered economic losses. Plaintiffs did not bring the action to remedy only their own claimed losses, however. Rather, they moved to certify a class…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Amchem Products, Inc. v. WindsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  2. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. DukesSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
  3. General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. FalconSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  4. Coopers & Lybrand v. LivesaySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  5. Ball v. GladdenOregon Supreme Court · 1968

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

3Cited by60 opinions

  1. In re Gen. Motors LLCDistrict Court, S.D. Illinois · 2018
  2. Migis v. Autozone, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2016
  3. Clark v. Eddie Bauer LLCOregon Supreme Court · 2023
  4. Simonsen v. Sandy River Auto, LLCCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2018
  5. Morris v. Dental Care Today, P. C.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2020

55 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