Legal Opinion

Aspinall v. Philip Morris, Inc.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided March 16, 2009PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtIreland, J.

This case involves a class action alleging that the defendants engaged in unfair or deceptive practices, in violation of G. L. c. 93A, §§ 2 and 9, when they sold Marlboro Lights cigarettes with the claim, on the package, that the cigarettes delivered lower tar and nicotine than regular cigarettes. See Aspinall v. Philip Morris Cos., 442 Mass. 381, 385 (2004) (on interlocutory review, affirming order certifying class). On cross motions for summary judgment, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ claim under G. L. c. 93A is barred by G. L. c. 93A, § 3, or, alternatively, preempted by…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Altria Group, Inc. v. GoodSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
  2. Aspinall v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2004
  3. United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2006
  4. Commonwealth v. Fremont Investment & LoanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2008
  5. United States Ex Rel. Bly-Magee v. PremoSupreme Court of the United States · 2008

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. O'Hara v. Diageo-Guinness, USA, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2018
  2. In re Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. Mktg. & Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig.District Court, D. New Mexico · 2017
  3. Estrada v. Progressive Direct InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2014
  4. O'Hara v. Diageo-Guinness, USA, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2019
  5. Malden Transp., Inc. v. Uber Techs., Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2019

2 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