Legal Opinion
Conley v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided December 26, 2002No. C 00-1740 SBAPublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
ARMSTRONG, District Judge.
At the close of plaintiffs’ case-in-chief at trial, defendants filed two motions for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a): Defendants’ Joint Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (the “Joint Motion”) and Defendant R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (“Reynolds’ Motion”). 1 Plaintiffs have filed respective oppositions to the motions.
These motions are now before the Court. Having read and considered the papers…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Food & Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Geier v. American Honda Motor Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Barker v. Lull Engineering Co.California Supreme Court · 1978
- Soule v. General Motors Corp.California Supreme Court · 1994
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- LEGGETT GROUP, INC. v. DavisDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2007
- Rosa v. CITY OF SEASIDEDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2009
- Bougopoulos v. Altria Group, Inc.District Court, D. New Hampshire · 2013
- Major v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- Ferlanti v. Liggett Group, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2006
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.