Legal Opinion
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided February 22, 2000No. C2-99-885, C4-99-886 and C6-99-887PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellants, domestic and British tobacco companies and tobacco organizations, challenge the district court’s decision to lift its earlier protective orders after the completion of litigation and allow public access to certain documents produced during discovery. They argue that the court failed to use the proper standard in reaching its decision to modify the protective orders. Even if the proper standard was used, appellants contend that the district court committed other legal errors bearing on whether disclosure was warranted, including a failure to conduct a…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Seattle Times Co. v. RhinehartSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Beckman Industries, Inc. Smithkline Beckman, and Stauffer Chemical Company, Intervenors-Appellees v. International Insurance Company, Beckman Industries, Inc. Smithkline Beckman, and Monsanto Company Reichhold Limited Fmc Corporation Bridgestone/firestone, Intervenors-Appellees v. International Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- United States v. ZolinSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- In Re Public Defender ServiceDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2003
- Byrd v. U.S. Xpress, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2014
- United States v. Philip Morris Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2002
- In re Pera Salary Determinations Affecting Retired & Active EmployeesCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2012
- Mahoney & Hagberg v. NewgardCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.