Legal Opinion
Phillip Morris, Inc. v. Harshbarger
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Decided November 13, 1998No. 98-1199, 98-1200PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SELYA, Circuit Judge.
The plaintiffs in this case, manufacturers of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products, 1 mounted a constitutional challenge to the novel ingredient-reporting requirements of Mass. Gen. L. ch. 94, § 307B (Section 307B). The district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction restraining two state officials (collectively, the Commonwealth) from enforcing these requirements. In this venue, the Common wealth invites us to vacate or modify the injunction. We decline the invitation.
I
Background
A
The Statute
Regulation is not a stranger to the tobacco…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Nollan v. California Coastal CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Philip Morris, Incorporated v. Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General of Massachusetts, United States Tobacco Company v. L. Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General of MassachusettsCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1998
- F.P. Development, LLC. v. Charter Twp. of Canton, Mich.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2021