Pattern
Page Category
Page Code
Items:
Listing
Prev Page « [26 - 50 of 506] » Next Page


021115 GLORIA SCOTT, ET AL. v. AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, INC., ET AL.
In the instant case, we conclude that Phase I of the trial should be conducted so as to determine defendants’ liability for establishing a court-supervised medical monitoring and/or cessation program. Such a trial will include the common issues of fault and causation, which can be tried on a class-wide basis . . . The matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
- 34,124 bytes.

FLORIDA CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PETITION FORM
Smokefree For Health's Constitutional Amendment Petition for a statewide smoking ban to be placed in the state consitution.
- 7,605 bytes.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY v. RJR
Complaint brought by European Community against RJR over money-laundering/smuggling. 157. The RJR DEFENDANTS and their employees were central figures and aggressors in the fraudulent scheme. RJR personnel, including Richard Larocca, Tom Brock, Renato Meyer, Diego Luchessa, Oscar Ivanissevich, John Dyson, Sergio Rotati, Bill Ventura, Orlando Morales, and other RJR executives, performed their fraudulent and illegal acts on behalf of the RJR DEFENDANTS within the scope and course of their employment with RJR. The officers and directors of the RJR DEFENDANTS, including RJR Chairman Steven F. Goldstone, had knowledge of, or were willfully blind and recklessly indifferent toward, the unlawful activity.
- 263,979 bytes.

Ethics vs. Activists: The Tobacco Experience
Presentation at the Canadian Club by Michel Poirier, Chairman, President & CEO JTI-MacDonald.
- 13,580 bytes.

WEINSTEIN: Expanded Simon II Certification Memo
Weinstein's arguments for certifying Simon II as a national class-action for all smokers
- 393,144 bytes.

Bullock v. Philip Morris: Bleakley Closing Arguments, October 2, 2002
- 3,715 bytes.

Philip Morris: Proposed General Verdict Form
Philip Morris' Proposed General Verdict Form
- 71,761 bytes.

TI Analysis of 'Showdown on Smoking' Newsweek, June 6, 1983
This is a TI analysis of Newsweek's 4 page article on the nonsmokers' rights movement, which was published in the June 6, 1983 issue. The TI closely monitored this article and Newsweek staff for months. In apparent appeasement, Newsweek shortened the article, removed the item from Cover Story status, moved it to the back of the magazine and deleted 3 sidebars (one on health effects, one on political donations/industry lobbying, and one asserting a poor business prognosis). Despite these measures, the TI felt, "the article contains sufficient errors and indicatons of superficiality and poor research so as to leave an anti-smoking bias in readers' minds." Advertising income suffered dearly. Issues of Newsweek before after after the June 6 issue carried 7-10 pages of cigarette ads, but this issue carried none. Whether the ad removal was voluntary or not, we can probably accept White's estimate of a $1 Million revenue loss from publishing the article. Other magazines, before and since, suffered similar fates for publishing the wrong stories (most notably, Mother Jones, US News and World Report, Newsweek (again) (1994) and Time (1994). Authors of the Newsweek article were: "Lynn Langway with Gerald C. Lubenow and Pamela Abramson in San Francisco, John McCormick in Minnesota, Petere McAlevey in New York, Marsha Zaba(name illegible) in Boston, Mary Hager in Washington and bureau reports."
- 44,563 bytes.

ESRTA v. NY 10/21/03
On March 26, 2003, New York State enacted Chapter 13 of the Laws of 2003 (“Chapter 13"), which amended the Clean Indoor Air Act, Ch.244 of the Laws of 1989. Chapter 13 regulates smoking in a number of public and work places, including bars and food service establishments, and it imposes civil penalties of no greater than two thousand dollars for those who fail to comply with its provisions. Those subject to Chapter 13 include: (1) any person or entity that controls the use of an area in which smoking is prohibited, (2) any employer whose place of employment is an area in which smoking is prohibited, and (3) any person who smokes in an area where smoking is prohibited. Enforcement of Chapter 13 is left to local county boards of health, officers designated by elected county legislatures or boards of supervisors, or, absent such boards of health or designated officers, then the New York State Department of Health. . . . Because Plaintiffs have failed to establish either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions going to the merits that make them a fair ground for litigation plus a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in their favor, the Court needn’t reach the issue of whether Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction. The Court does note, however, that Plaintiffs would have to demonstrate that it is likely that they would suffer irreparable harm should injunctive relief be denied, as “a mere possibility of irreparable harm is insufficient to justify the drastic remedy of a preliminary injunction
- 26,336 bytes.

the 'new' New York City Plan
PURPOSE: The purpose of this plan is to amend the restaurant provisions of the New York City Smoke-Free Air Act. The proposed amendment (see section 6) has been cleared by Covington & Burling and agreed to by the member companies. The foundation of this plan is to educate the New York City Council about the hardships suffered by restaurants in complying with the law. This will be accomplished by using grassroots mobilization with supporting economic impact information and public relations. . . BACKGROUND: The United Restaurant and Tavern Association of Now York State was a tremendous ally during the legislative battle. They have agreed to spearhead continuing efforts to provide reasonable accommodation. The Association intends to present their case -the severe restaurant smoking provisions are not necessary and have a detrimental economic impact -- to elected officials in a reasonable, well-argued manner. . . A newsletter will be developed by the United Restaurant and Tavern Association of New York State to provide a forum to involve individual restaurants owners as part of the large, active group.
- 13,379 bytes.

Report On Meeting Of Scientific Advisory Board, New York, N.Y., May 10-11, 1958
- 8,868 bytes. 1958-05-13

DOJ ruling on Gulson / Welch video testimony
The United States has filed an Emergency Motion to have the depositions and trial testimony of Messrs. Gulson and Welch, who are located in Australia, conducted by teleconference and/or video conference. Pursuant to Order #597 which granted Joint Defendants’ Motion in Limine to take the depositions of Messrs. Gulson and Welch at least five business days prior to their trial testimony, the United States is requesting that such deposition and trial testimony be taken by use of either teleconference and/or video conference . . . Finally, in terms of the Court’s ability as fact-finder to assess the credibility and demeanor of these witnesses, a video of their testimony is no different and no less satisfactory than their actual testimony in open court. That is the procedure we are using for numerous other witnesses whose prior video testimony has been designated and there is no reason it will not be equally satisfactory for these witnesses. We are three weeks away from trial. Both counsel and the Court need to maximize the efficient use of their time and resources. For all the foregoing reasons, the Government’s Emergency Motion will be granted.
- 6,168 bytes.

DOJ Ruling on US Motion to Disqualify Neil H. Koslowe and Shearman & Sterling from Representing BATAS
These flagrant violations of the Federal Rules, this Court’s Local Rules, and this Court’s Case Management Orders – to say nothing of common courtesy and civility – is astounding. With full knowledge that the subpoenas being served were in violation of the rules and orders already cited, counsel for Mr. Koslowe, et al., purposefully and deliberately served patently faulty subpoenas on four busy DOJ attorneys with a mere three, or less, business days’ of advance notice. The failure to give Government counsel, with whom counsel for Koslowe, et al., was in constant contact, any advance notice of the service of the subpoenas is particularly stunning. . . . For the following reasons, the Court concludes, after weighing the different interests enumerated by Judge Green in Laker Airways, that disqualification is in fact the only appropriate remedy in this case. First, Mr. Koslowe, on the basis of his own time records, worked a total of 382 hours on the FDA Litigation. In the course of that representation, upon which he worked personally and substantially, he had extensive access to confidential information that could be of use to him in representing BATAS in its efforts to insulate certain documents from discovery by the Government. Work performed on the FDA Litigation constitutes a “matter” within the meaning of D.C. Rule 1.11. Thus, it is reasonable to infer that knowledge he gained during the course of that work could be useful to him in his representation of BATAS, in clear violation of the disciplinary rules of this jurisdiction. . . .District of Columbia Rule 1.11(b) provides that the disqualification of a former government attorney because of his personal and substantial participation in a matter requires the concomitant disqualification of the law firm by which he has become employed. Therefore, the Motion to Disqualify Shearman & 22 Sterling will be granted.
- 57,067 bytes.

040203 USA v. Philip Morris, et.al.
The Special Master has issued Report & Recommendation #132, recommending that the United States' Motion to Compel Defendants to Produce Documents Stored at Their Law Firms ("Law Firm Motion") be denied, and that Defendant Philip Morris USA, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File Praecipe or, Alternatively, Surreply to Correct Certain Factual Misstatements in United States' Response to Defendants' Surreply Memoranda Filed in Opposition to the United States' Motion to Compel Defendants to Produce Documents Stored at Their Law Firms be denied. The United States has now filed an Objection to Report & Recommendation #132, Defendants have filed an Opposition, and the United States has filed a Reply. Upon consideration of all the pleadings, as well as the entire record in this case, the Court concludes that Report & Recommendation #132 should be adopted.
- 12,504 bytes.

NYC Smoke Free Air Act
Invitation from Speaker Gifford Miller to attend Dec. 13 meeting. In his message, he included the revised bill.
- 32,566 bytes.

030916 HMOs v. Tobacco
For the purposes of the summary judgment motion that we review today, several tobacco companies (Tobacco) conceded that they conspired to mislead the public as to the health risks of smoking. As the district court2 did, we consider whether three Minnesota nonprofit health maintenance organizations (HMOs) have presented sufficient evidence of causation of harm and damages to recoup certain health-care costs of their members that resulted from tobacco use. For the reasons expressed below, we affirm the summary judgment entered in favor of Tobacco on the HMOs' damages claims, but we remand for further consideration of the HMOs' suit for injunctive relief. . . I believe the last paragraph of Section III of our court's opinion demonstrates the inconsistency of its damages approach. In remanding the claims for injunctive relief, the court appears to conclude that causation and injury in fact have been established. Supra at 15-16 ("Indeed, we believe that the record contains a mountain of evidence tending to show that advertising generally causes people to begin smoking and causes current smokers to smoke more, which increases costs for the HMOs. If one concedes that a portion of the advertising was fraudulent, which Tobacco has done for the purposes of this motion, a reasonable person could infer that that fraudulent portion caused a part of those costs, even if the HMOs' participants differed slightly from the populations used to study the effect of advertising generally on the prevalence of smoking. In other words, although the evidence in the case is, as we have said, insufficient to allow a factfinder to arrive at a reasonable estimate of the extent of harm caused, we hold that it was sufficient to raise an inference that harm has in fact been caused."). These statements are inconsistent with the opinion's earlier statement that the only causal link between Tobacco's misconduct and the HMOs' damages is Dr. Harris, whose testimony was properly excluded under Daubert. While I concur in the court's decision to reverse and remand the judgment on the claims for injunctive relief, I find the procedural grounds mentioned by the court in the first and second paragraphs of Section III to be sufficient to reach this end. For the reasons explained above, I would reverse the summary judgment in favor of Tobacco on the claims for damages and injunctive relief, and remand to the district court for further proceedings.
- 39,945 bytes.

Letter to Philip Morris from the Tax Foundation
Thanks to Philip Morris' support, 2000 was a very successful year for the Tax Foundation. As the I want to take a minute to tell you about the exciting plans we have for the year and request that Philip Moms renew its annual support for the Tax Foundation in the amount of $50,000.00. I would also like to see Philip Morris continue as a gold sponsor of the Tax Foundation's 64th Annual Dinner in the amount of $7,500.00. Furthermore, I would also ask that Philip Moms make a $25,000.00 contribution toward the Tax Foundation's Excise Tax Conference held early in January at Jacksonville, Florida. . . One of the most important projects we now have underway is our Next Generation Tax Model project. Patrick Fleenor, our Chief Economist, is just weeks away from completing the first stage of this project - a "static" tax model similar to that used by Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation and other organizations such as Citizens for Tax Justice. This new model will allow us to analyze President George W. Bush's tax proposal, as well as congressional tax plans, in a matter of hours rather than days or weeks. . . I have enclosed an invoice itemizing these contributions
- 8,932 bytes. 2001-02-05 Scott A. Hodge, Executive Director

Garrett v. University of Alabama
Patricia Garrett and Milton Ash, suing under thte ADA, alleged that Alabama state agencies discriminated against them because they were disabled.The Alabama Supreme Court in 2001 threw out the case, Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356. Ash, who suffers from asthma, claims that the state department of youth services failed to enforce its no-smoking policy. The 11th Circuit panel -- Chief Judge J.L. Edmondson, Judge Edward E. Carnes and visiting U.S. District Judge Richard W. Story of the Northern District of Georgia -- vacated the Supreme Court's decision The Judges ruled that the sovereign immunity that had protected Alabama from the ADA did not apply to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits agencies that receive federal funds from excluding handicapped people from participating in the agencies' programs.
- 15,406 bytes.

TECHNOLOGY CAN HELP US AVOID SMOKING BANS / Authors: ST JOHN JIM # AAA AIRCARE SYSTEMS
April 5, 1991 Ms. Brennan Dawson The Tobacco institute . . . I'm a 12 year veteran of the Smoke Wars in various workplace and entertainment environments. To be successful, I have had to convince people-who are in most cases spooked by anti-smoking hype--that high efficiency filtration can remove whatever risks they imagine accrue from ETS. We function as a needed third, mediating party in a highly polarized debate. I would like to suggest that I could be of professional assistance to TI in the form of testimony before legislative bodies, and also in generating written material on ETS control technology. Enclosed are clips of articles I have contributed to regional trade publications. I'm scheduled as a featured speaker on ETS at the May convention of the Washington Licenced Beverage Association, and have arranged for a May front page article on ETS in the Washington Foodservice News. The West Coast is the front line of the prohibition battle, and sometimes I feel like I need to spend more time and dollars on this than I can afford on my own hook. I think we can help each other get the facts on the table. Sincerely, Jim St. John
- 4,136 bytes. Jim St. John

39,000 Tobacco Documents on CD
Rios Computers, Representative Tom Bliley, House Commerce Committee, smokeless tobacco tips.
- 1,930 bytes.

Glantz: A Selection of OSHA Comments on Lung Cancer
This material is from Dr. Glantz's post hearing comment submitted to the OSHA dockett on indoor air.
- 29,553 bytes.

Glantz: OSHA Post-Post Hearing Comment
Gori's post-hearing comment is essentially a restatement of his written and oral testimony and contributes no new information to the record. He continues to restate his two views that scientists who find that ETS is dangerous are somehow "going along with the crowd" and are somehow lacking in scientific integrity and that it is impossible to conclude anything about small risks from epidemiology. He also continues to assert his view that no animal experiments are relevant to humans. If medical science adopted this view, most biomedical research would stop.
- 32,132 bytes.

OSHA: Proposed Standard For Indoor Air Quality: ETS Hearings, January 24, 1995
Witnesses: Systems Applications International, Stanley Greenfield; AIHA, John Tiffany; Questions? Ms. Sherman, Mr. O'Neil , Judge Vittone, Clausen Ely, Ms. Janes, United States Department Of Labor, Occupational Safety And Health Administration, Public Hearing, Proposed Standard For Indoor Air Quality
- 32,311 bytes.

OSHA: Proposed Standard For Indoor Air Quality: ETS Hearings, January 19, 1995
Witnesses: R.J. Reynolds, Christopher R. E. Coggins, Michael W. Ogden, Paul R. Nelson, Stephen B. Sears, Michael W. Ogden, Christopher R. E. Coggins, Hoy R. Bohanon, Jr., Allan Hedge, Ms. Sherman ; Questions: Dr. Glantz, Ms. Sherman, Mr. Herman, Mr. Dinegar, Mr. Myers, United States Department Of Labor, Occupational Safety And Health Administration, Public Hearing, Proposed Standard For Indoor Air Quality
- 32,387 bytes.

OSHA: Proposed Standard For Indoor Air Quality: ETS Hearings, January 18, 1995
Witnesses: R.J. Reynolds, Christopher R. E. Coggins, Michael W. Ogden, Paul R. Nelson, Stephen B. Sears, Michael W. Ogden, Christopher R. E. Coggins, Hoy R. Bohanon, Jr., Questions:, Ms. Sherman, Dr. Samet, Ms. Sherman, United States Department Of Labor, Occupational Safety And Health Administration, Public Hearing, Proposed Standard For Indoor Air Quality,
- 32,469 bytes.
Listing
Prev Page « [26 - 50 of 506] » Next Page