Legal Opinion

Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 30, 2012No. A10-0215PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

DIETZEN, Justice.

Respondents Gregory Curtis, et al., bring this action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against appellant Philip Morris, Inc.,1 and its parent company, Altria Group, Inc.,2 alleging that Philip Morris’s use of the words “light” and “lowered tar and nicotine” to market and sell cigarettes was false and deceptive, and violated Minnesota’s consumer protection statutes. Respondents asserted claims under Minn.Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a (2010), and for common law fraud and unjust enrichment. The district court granted, among other things, respondents’ motion…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  2. Hoang Minh Ly v. NystromSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
  3. Oanes v. Allstate Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
  4. Gronquist v. OlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
  5. Dykes v. Sukup Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2010

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

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. In re Petters Co.United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · 2013
  2. Buetow v. A.L.S. Enterprises, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2012
  3. Dickhoff ex rel. Dickhoff v. GreenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
  4. Edeh v. Equifax Information Services, LLCDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2013
  5. Sheila Foster v. State of MinnesotaCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2018

25 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