Legal Opinion
Aspinall v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided August 13, 2004PublishedCited by 181 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGreaney, J.
The essential question presented by this appeal is whether the marketing of Marlboro Lights as “light” cigarettes that deliver “lowered tar and nicotine” may be challenged in a class action seeking damages, as deceptive conduct in a trade or business, in violation of G. L. c. 93A, §§ 2 and 9. The individual plaintiffs, smokers of Marlboro Lights, allege in their second amended complaint that Philip Morris Companies, Inc., and its subsidiary, Philip Morris, Inc., have engaged in practices prohibited by our consumer protection statute by misleading the public into believing that their product,…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Blackie v. BarrackCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
- Federal Trade Commission v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Slaney v. Westwood Auto, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
- International Fidelity Insurance v. WilsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983
- Nei v. BurleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by181 opinions
- Ruiz v. Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2007
- Katz v. Pershing, LLCCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2012
- McLaughlin v. American Tobacco Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2008
- Citizens Insurance Co. of America v. DaccachTexas Supreme Court · 2007
- Shaulis v. Nordstrom, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2017
176 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.