Archive for the 'DOJ Appeals' Category

USA v. Philip Morris, et. al. Appeal: J U D G M E N T, April 25, 2017

Tuesday, June 20th, 2017

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
On consideration thereof, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the District Court appealed from in these causes be affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case be remanded for further proceedings, in accordance with the opinion of the court filed herein this date.
END EXCERPT

USA v PHILIP MORRIS, et. al. Appeal: COURTROOM MINUTES OF ORAL ARGUMENT, Feb 14, 2017

Tuesday, February 14th, 2017

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
PROCLAMATION BEING MADE, the Court opened on February 14, 2017 at 9:41 a.m. The cause was heard as case No. 1 of 3 and argued before the Court by:
Michael A. Carvin, counsel for Appellant Philip Morris USA, Inc.
Melissa N. Patterson (DOJ), counsel for Appellee USA.
Eric R. Glitzenstein, counsel […]

DOCKET for USA v PHILIP MORRIS, et. al. Appeal #: 16-5127

Tuesday, February 7th, 2017

EXCERPT:
02/07/2017 FORM 72 submitted by arguing attorney, Michael A. Carvin, on behalf of Appellants Altria Group, Inc., Commonwealth Brands Incorporated, Commonwealth-Altadis, Inc., ITG Brands, LLC, Philip Morris USA Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company in 16-5101 (For Internal Use Only: Form is restricted to protect counsel’s personal contact information). [16-5101, 16-5127] (Mandell, Jeffrey)
02/07/2017 […]

USA v PHILIP MORRIS, et. al. Appeal: ORDER for Oral Argument, Feb 6, 2017

Monday, February 6th, 2017

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
It is ORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that the following times are allotted for the oral argument of this case scheduled for February 14, 2017, at 9:30 A.M.:
Appellant Philip Morris USA, Inc. -10 Minutes
Appellees -10 Minutes (to be divided among appellees as they see fit)
One counsel per […]

ORDER #66-Remand explaining why the Status Conference set for January 31, 2017, was cancelled

Tuesday, January 31st, 2017

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
On January 3, 2017, the Court Ordered counsel to appear on this date for a Status Conference since the Court of Appeals had issued the Mandate on a Motion on which it had recently ruled. As counsel know, there are two more Appeals pending before the Court of Appeals, in which […]

USA v PHILIP MORRIS, et. al.: MANUFACTURERS’ MEMORANDUM OF POSITION, Jan 10, 2017

Thursday, January 12th, 2017

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
The appellate mandate released on December 29, 2016 arose from Defendant R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company’s appeal from Order #56-Remand, which denied Reynolds’ motion for relief from this Court’s requirement that Reynolds publish the corrective statements on television on behalf of former-Defendant Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation. Accordingly, it is now […]

USA v PHILIP MORRIS, et. al. Appeal: MANDATE ISSUED to Clerk, U.S. District Court, Dec 29, 2016

Friday, December 30th, 2016

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
M A N D A T E
In accordance with the judgment of November 1, 2016, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41, this constitutes the formal mandate of this court.
END EXCERPT

USA v PHILIP MORRIS, et. al. Appeal: APPELLANTS’ REPLY BRIEF, Dec 22, 2016

Thursday, December 22nd, 2016

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
This Court rejected this gamesmanship in the Corrective Statements Decision when it held that Defendants correctly objected to publishing the original preambles. It should do so again here because the district court’s revised preambles suffer from the same flaws as the preambles previously invalidated by this Court: The revised preambles unambiguously […]

USA v PHILIP MORRIS, et. al. Appeal: ORDER, Dec 12, 2016

Monday, December 12th, 2016

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
It is ORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that this case be scheduled for oral argument on February 14, 2017, at 9:30 A.M. The composition of the argument panel will usually be revealed thirty days prior to the date of oral argument on the court’s web site at www.cadc.uscourts.gov.
. . […]

USA v PHILIP MORRIS, et. al. Appeal: APPELLEE BRIEF, Dec 2, 2016

Friday, December 2nd, 2016

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
Although this Court already held that the corrective statements may, consistent with RICO and the First Amendment, compel the cigarette manufacturers to “reveal the previously hidden truth about their products,” the companies now argue that the district court somehow contravened this Court’s past rulings by adopting preambles stating “Here is […]