Legal Opinion
Aspinall v. Philip Morris Companies
Massachusetts Superior Court
Decided November 22, 2005No. 986002HPublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Lauriat, Peter M., J.
Loris Aspinall and Thomas Geanacopoulos, individually and on behalf of a certified class (“the plaintiffs”), filed this action against Philip Morris Companies, Inc. and Philip Morris, Inc. (“the defendants”) alleging violations of G.L.c. 93A arising from the defendants’ use of the terms “Lights” and “Lowered Tar & Nicotine” on the packaging of Marlboro Lights cigarettes.
The defendants have now moved for leave to take deposition discovery of 156 to 624 absent class members. The defendants assert that such discovery is warranted due to the size and complexity of the case…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. ShuttsSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Honorable Ronald v. Dellums v. James M. Powell, Chief, United States Capitol Police, Jerry v. Wilson, Chief, Metropolitan Police DepartmentCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1977
- Smilow v. Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2003
- Broussard v. Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1998
- Aspinall v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2004
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Aspinall v. Philip Morris CompaniesMassachusetts Superior Court · 2012
- Aspinall v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.Massachusetts Superior Court · 2015