Make your own free website on Tripod.com
Tobacco Company
Business Practices Cases

(How They Treat Each Other, Their Employees,
Other Companies and Warehouses, The Farmers, Etc.
)

Com v Colquehouns et al., 2 Hen & Munf 213; 12 Va 403 (April 1808) (the State of Virginia was held not liable for loss of tobacco inspected by State inspectors, who embezzled same, and were insolvent, unable personally to repay)

Syers v Jonas, 2 Ex 111 (Mass, 1848) (case on price of tobacco)

Dixon v Myers & Co, 48 Va (7 Grat) 240 (Jan 1851) (tobacco stems bought by purchaser but not set aside, when warehouse fire occurred, liability remained with seller as title had not yet passed to the buyer, while the stems remained in the collective whole, 26 LNS 32)

Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 US 393; 15 L Ed 691 (1857) (tobacco farmer activity)

United States v Quantity of Tobacco, 27 Fed Cas 639 (#16,105); 5 Ben 112; 3 Int Rev Rec 158 (SD NY, May 1871) (issue of fraudulent intent by importer C. H. Lilienthal, in importing tobacco, taking into account prior record)

United States v Quantity of Tobacco, 27 Fed Cas 639 (#16,104) (Circ Ct, 1871). SCB: #16,105

United States v Quantity of Tobacco, 27 Fed Cas 665 (#16,106a); 5 Ben 547; 16 Int Rev Rec 132; 15 Int Rev Rec 19 (SD NY, 19 Jan 1872). SCB: #16,105

Blackwell v Armistead, 3 Fed Cas 546 (#1,474); 3 Hughes 163; 5 Am Law T 85 (WD Virginia, March 1872)

United States v Quantity of Tobacco, 27 Fed Cas 650 (#16,106); 6 Ben 68 (SD NY, May 1872) (tobacco forfeiture case, motion for new trial denied)

Blackwell v Wright, 73 NC 310 (Fall 1874) reh den 74 NC 733 (Jan 1876) (enjoining another's use of the "Durham" label)

W. T. Blackwell & Co v W. G. Dibrell & Co, 3 Fed Cas 549 (#1,475); 3 Hughes 151; 17 Am Law Reg (NS) 516; 14 OG 633 (ED Virginia, 13 Jan 1878) (trademark label case, unauthorized use of the word "Durham")

Hier, et al v Abrahams, et al, 82 NY (37 Sickels) 519 (16 Nov 1880) (trademark case, alleging fraudulent imitation, aka "Pride Tobacco Case")

Nash v Page, 80 Ky 539, 44 Am Rep 490 (Sep 1882) (public tobacco warehouse must serve public without discrimination, not select bidders nor reject producers)

Turner v State of Maryland, 107 US 38; 2 S Ct 44; 27 L Ed 370 (5 Feb 1883) (affirming constitutionality of state tobacco inspection law; conviction in state court upheld, as per tobacco being commonly adulterated.)

Re Paul, 94 NY 497 (Jan 1884) (tobacco manufacture was occurring in rooms and apartments, not just factories as now; the case issue was a challenge to banning this, limiting manufacturing to non-residential areas)

Matter of Jacobs, 33 Hun 374; 2 NY Cr 346 (Oct 1884) aff'd 2 NY Cr 539; 98 NY 98; 50 Am Rep 636 (20 Jan 1885) (issue of banning cigarette manufacture in tenements)

Blackwell Durham Co v McElwe, 94 NC 425 (Feb 1886) (trademark case)

Bloete v Simon, 19 Abb NC 88 (NY, May 1887) (label case)

Strasser v Moonelis, 11 Cent Rep 461; 108 NY 611 (6 March 1888). SCB: 23 Jones & S 197 (cigar makers trade union label case)

People v Fisher, 57 Sup Ct Rep N Y (50 Hun) 552 (NY, Jan 1889) (cigar label case)

Cigar Makers Protective Union No 98 v Conley, 40 Minn 243; 3 LRA 125 (11 March 1889) (fraudulent use of label case)

Carson v Ury, 39 F 777; 5 LRA 614 (CA Mo, 2 Sep 1889) (one of many cases alleging fraudulent use of union label on cigars)

Kaufman v Farley Mfg Co, 78 Iowa 679; 43 NW 612 (28 Oct 1889) (one of a number of cases involving a manufacturer attempt to terminate a jobber)

Weener v Brayton, 152 Mass 101; 8 LRA 640 (24 June 1890) (fraudulent use of label case)

McVey v Brendel, 144 Pa 235; 13 LRA 377 (5 Oct 1891) (cigar makers trade union label case)

Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co v Reid Tobacco Co, 104 Mo 53; 24 Am St Rep 314 (Oct 1890) (trademark infringement cases)

D'Estrinoz v Gerker, 43 F 285, 286 (ED Pa, 8 April 1890). SCB: GA 5251 (defining "Cigar: A bunch of tobacco rolled together and put into shape for smoking, and intended for that use." 11 CJ 765 n 77)

Joseph v Macowsky, 96 Cal 518; 31 P 914 (30 Nov 1892) (one of a number of trademark misrepresentation cases)

Western District Warehouse Co v Harris, 16 Ky L R 93 (30 May 1894) (tobacco warehouse fire; warehouse had no insurance though it was the custom for warehouses to have it; the tobacco owner evidently knew in this case of the lacking, so warehouse said he assumed the risk.)

Bonsack Machine Co v Elliott, 63 F 835 (SD NY, 4 April 1894) (patent infringement case re cigarette machine)

Bonsack Machine Co v National Cigarette Co, 64 F 858 (SD NY, 2 Oct 1894) (slightly different machine is not a contempt of court issue, when patent office issues a patent)

State v Bishop, 128 Mo 212; 31 SW 9; 49 Am St Rep 569; 29 LRA 200 (12 May 1895) (one of many union label misuse cases)

Bonsack Machine Co v S F Hess & Co, 68 F 119 (WD Va, 28 May 1895) (cigarette machine royalty case)

Commercial Insurance Co v Friedlander, 156 Ill 595; 41 NE 183; 16 ALR3d 774 (15 June 1895) (insurance company allegations of policyholder fraud by overvaluing leaf tobacco value at $9,840 vs $1,278)

Bonsack Machine Co v Elliott and National Cigarette & Tobacco Co, 69 F 335 (CA 2, 28 June 1895) (patent infringement case) SCB: 63 F 835

Bonsack Machine Co v Smith, 70 F 383 (WD NC, 28 Sep 1895) (patent and monopoly case)

Wright v Duke, 36 NYS 853 (18 Dec 1895) (defrauding partner when selling his interest, by concealing a lucrative contract, impacting company value)

Garrett v T. H. Garrett & Co, 24 CCA 173; 78 F 472 (CA 6, Ky, 8 Dec 1896) (allegations of imitative labels and wrongful use of trade name)

Adam Roth Grocer Co v Lewis, 69 Mo App 446 (23 Feb 1897) (title to tobacco did not pass when not yet set aside and identified for buyer, 26 LNS 32)

Richmond & A. R. Co v R. A. Patterson Tobacco Co, 169 US 311; 18 S Ct 335; 42 L Ed 759 (21 Feb 1898) (issue of responsibility for tobacco lost in shipment)

Western Assurance Co v Ray, 105 Ky 523; 49 SW 326 16 ALR3d 774 (1 Feb 1899) (fraud allegations case, insurance company allegations of policy holder fraud by overvaluing loss at $13,370 vs $8,370)

Rickard v Du Bois, 97 F 96 (D Conn, 2 Aug 1899) (patent application, deemed intended for fraud)

U.S. v Two-hundred Twenty Patented Machines, 99 F 559 (ED Pa, 5 Feb 1900) (the innocent take the risk if the cigar manufacturer violates the law, and machines are confiscated for taxes)

Commonwealth v Grinstead, 108 Ky 59; 55 SW 720 (10 March 1900)

Rickard v Du Bon, 103 F 868 (CA 2, 25 July 1900) (refusing to allow a patent on a process for treating tobacco plants to make their leaves appear spotted. At the time of the invention, according to the court, cigar smokers considered cigars with spotted wrappers to be of superior quality, and the invention was designed to make unspotted tobacco leaves appear to be of the spotted—and thus more desirable—type. The court noted that the invention did not promote the burning quality of the leaf or improve its quality in any way; "the only effect, if not the only object, of such treatment, is to spot the tobacco, and counterfeit the leaf spotted by natural causes."). SCB: 97 F 96

U.S. v 246½ Pounds of Tobacco, 103 F 791 (ND Wash, 14 Aug 1900)

Anargyros v Egyptian Amasis Cigarette Co, 54 App Div 345; 66 NYS 626 (9 Nov 1900) (trademark infringement case, as ex-employee used a similar style)

Chesapeake & O R Co v Com. of Kentucky, 179 US 388; 21 S Ct 101; 45 L Ed 244 (3 Dec 1900) (segregation era railroad passengers case; Kentucky law ordered railroad to provide segregated cars; pursuant to the law, blacks were forced into the "smoking car . . . alleged to be small, badly ventilated, unclean, and fitted with greatly inferior accommodations")

Louisville & N R Co v Eubank, 184 US 27; 22 S Ct 277; 46 L Ed 416 (27 Jan 1902) (shipping charges case)

Felsenheld / Merry World Tobacco v U S, 186 US 126; 22 S Ct 740; 46 L Ed 1085 (19 May 1902) (confiscated tobacco, banned for having anything other than tobacco therein)

Hirschhorn v Bradley, 117 Iowa 130; 90 NW 592 (20 May 1902) (manufacturer attempt to terminate cigar sales agent)

Pannell, et al v Louisville Tobacco Warehouse Co, et al, 113 Ky 630; 68 SW 662 (Ky App, 6 June 1902) (case involving state law setting maximum warehousemen charges)

Pannell, et al v Louisville Tobacco Warehouse Co, et al, 82 SW 1141 (Ky App, 12 Nov 1902). SCB: 113 Ky 630; 68 SW 662

Hirschhorn v Nelden-Judson Drug Co, 26 Utah 110; 72 P 386 (1 May 1903) (manufacturer v sales agent)

State ex inf Crow, Atty Gen v Continental Tobacco Co, 177 Mo 1; 75 SW 737 (15 June 1903) (price fixing case)

Whitwell, Joseph P v Continental Tobacco Co, 125 F 454 (CA 8, Minn, 12 Nov 1903) (conspiracy in restraint of trade case)

A Steinhardt & Bro v United States, 126 F 443 (SD NY, 17 Nov 1903) (defining smokers' articles, 58 CJ 776 n 39)

Northern Securities Co v United States, 193 US 197 (14 March 1904) (a conspiracy in restraint of trade case that established a precedent later used in tobacco company cases)

United Cigarette Machine Co v Wright, 132 F 195 (ED NC, 9 Sep 1904) (demand for accounting, and allegations of fraud)

Continental Tobacco Co v Larus Bro Co, 66 CCA 557; 133 F 727 (CA 4, Va, 15 Nov 1904) (trade case, alleging infringement by using too-similar style can, of type appealing to tobacco-using illiterates not likely to note subtle differences)

Werckmeister v American Tobacco Co, 138 F 162 (D SD NY, 23 March 1905) (copyright infringement case)

Com of Massachusetts v Strauss, 188 Mass 229; 74 NE 308 (19 May 1905) (conspiracy in restraint of trade case)

American Tobacco Co v Polisco, 104 Va 777; 52 SE 563 (18 Jan 1906) (tobacco truck hit child, issue of failure to look, discussion of child-negligence concept, a general principle significant for showing how to take advantage of children, compare Harrison, infra)

Hale v Henkel, 201 US 43; 26 S Ct 370; 50 L Ed 652 (SD NY, 12 March 1906) (anti-trust case, subpoena during investigation)

McAlister, Dir, Am Tobacco Co v Henkel, 201 US 90; 26 S Ct 385; 50 L Ed 671 (12 March 1906) (anti-trust case, tobacco company challenged subpoena issued during the government investigation of its business practices, eventually leading to the monopoly conviction upheld five years later)

U.S. Tobacco Co v McGreenery, 144 F 531 (D Mass, 23 March 1906) (unfair labeling competition allegations)

Werckmeister v American Tobacco Co, 74 CCA 682; 144 F 1023 (CA 2, 4 April 1906). SCB: 138 F 162 (copyright infringement case)

American Tobacco Co v Werckmeister, 76 CCA 647; 146 F 375 (CA 2, 4 April 1906) (copyright infringement case). SCB: 138 F 162

Com of Massachusetts v Strauss, 191 Mass 545; 78 NE 136; 11 LNS 968 (17 May 1906), rev den 207 US 599 (1907) (conspiracy in restraint of trade case, conviction upheld)

United States v MacAndrews & Forbes Co, 149 F 823 (SD NY, December 1906) (conspiracy in restraint of trade case)

United States v MacAndrews & Forbes Co, 149 F 836 (SD NY, 17 Jan 1907)

R J Reynolds Tobacco Co v Allen Bros Tobacco Co, 151 F 819 (WD Va, 20 March 1907) (trademark infringement and unfair competition case)

A. Santaella & Co v Otto F. Lange Co, 155 F 719; 84 CCA 145 (CA 8, Iowa, 17 June 1907) (ND Iowa cigar salesman termination case, contract with manufacturer was written so as to be unenforceable)

United Cigarette Machine Co v Wright, 156 F 244 (ED NC, 24 Aug 1907)

Locker v American Tobacco Co, 121 App Div 443; 106 NYS 115 (4 Oct 1907) (conspiracy in restraint of trade case)

American Tobacco Co v Werckmeister, 207 US 284; 28 S Ct 72; 52 L Ed 208; 12 Ann Cas 595 (2 Dec 1907) (copyright infringement case, every reproduction of a copyrighted work must bear the statutory notice). SCB: 76 CCA 647; 146 F 375

Werckmeister v American Tobacco Co, 207 US 375; 28 S Ct 124; 52 L Ed 254 (CA 2, 16 Dec 1907) (copyright infringement case). SCB: 138 F 162; 74 CCA 682; 144 F 1023

Com of Massachusetts v Strauss, 207 US 599; 28 S Ct 253; 52 L Ed 358 (15 Oct 1907). SCB: 188 Mass 229, 74 NE 308; 191 Mass 545, 78 NE 136, 11 LNS 968 (conspiracy in restraint of trade case; conviction upheld, certiorari denied)

State v Goodrich, 133 Wis 242; 113 NW 388; 14 Ann Cas 932; 11 CJ 766 (15 Oct 1907) (distinguishing between definition of cigarettes and small cigars, for purposes of banning cigarettes as other states, e.g., Iowa, had done)

Owen County Burley Tobacco Society v Brumback, 128 Ky 137; 107 SW 710 (7 Feb 1908) (issue of telling a tobacco farmer to not sell outside the association, pooling sales)

Hairston v Danville & W R Co, 208 US 598; 28 S Ct 331; 52 L Ed 637 (Va, 24 Feb 1908) (eminent domain case, taking private land to aid Rucker & Witten Tobacco Company transport. Landowner unsuccessfully objected that the intended use was not a "public use," the only constitutional/lawful basis for an eminent domain taking.)

U.S. Tobacco Co v American Tobacco Co, et al., 163 F 701 (SD NY, 10 July 1908) (conspiracy in restraint of trade case)

Larus & Bro Co v American Tobacco Co and Weisert Bros Tobacco Co v American Tobacco Co, 163 F 712 (SD NY, 10 July 1908) (denying rehearing of 163 F 701)

Monarch Tobacco Works v American Tobacco Co, 165 F 774 (WD Ky, 21 Dec 1908) (conspiracy in restraint of trade case)

American Tobacco Co v Commonwealth, 115 SW 754 (Ky App, 29 Jan 1909) (anti-trust case)

American Tobacco Co v Commonwealth, 131 Ky 768; 115 SW 755 (Ky App, 3 Feb 1909) (reversing conviction)

American Tobacco Co v Commonwealth, 115 SW 756 (Ky App, 3 Feb 1909) (indictment was not written pursuant to the revised statute)

American Tobacco Co v Com, 116 SW 1176 (Ky App, 25 March 1909) (monopoly case re ban on raising/lowering prices above/below market value). SCB: 115 SW 754

Ware-Kramer Tobacco Co v American Tobacco Co, 178 F 117 (ED NC, 8 March 1910) (monopoly case)

Ware-Kramer Tobacco Co v American Tobacco Co, 180 F 160 (ED NC, 16 June 1910) (criminal conspiracy issue, violation of criminal law can result in damage to private citizen)

Collins v Com of Ky, 141 Ky 565; 133 SW 233 (13 Jan 1911) (tobacco farmer pooling case, convicted for selling outside pool)

Maloney v Com of Ky, 141 Ky 570; 133 SW 235 (13 Jan 1911) (tobacco farmer pooling case, convicted for selling outside pool)

Norfolk & W.R. Co v Dixie Tobacco Co, ( 111 Va 813; 69 SE 1106 (26 Jan 1911) (business practices case; issue of damage to tobacco in shipment)

US v American Tobacco Co, 221 US 106; 31 S Ct 632; 55 L Ed 663 (29 May 1911) (unlawful cigarette monopoly case, conviction upheld, as result of investigation begun and upheld years before)

Fifth Ave Coach Co v City of New York, 221 US 467; 31 S Ct 709; 55 L Ed 815 (29 May 1911) (an early case upholding local, here, City, authority to regulate tobacco advertising). SCB: 126 App Div 658; 110 NYS 1037; 58 Misc 405, 111 NYS 759; 194 NY 26, 21 LRA (NS) 744, 86 NE 824, 16 A & E Ann Cas 695

American Tobacco Co v Bland, 145 Ky 157; 140 SW 69 (27 Oct 1911) (resisting worker compensation claim)

American Tobacco Co v Globe Tobacco Co, 193 F 1015 (D Mich, 2 Dec 1911) (issues of trademark infringement and unfair competition)

Burley Tobacco Society v Thomas, 145 Ky 748; 141 SW 66 (8 Dec 1911) (tobacco farmer sold outside the society's sprocess)

Burley Tobacco Society v Thomas, 145 Ky 750; 141 SW 67 (8 Dec 1911) (tobacco farmer sold ouside the society's process)

In re Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade of the City of New York, 222 US 578; 32 S Ct 833; 56 L Ed 323 (11 Dec 1911)

Locker v American Tobacco Co, 194 F 232 (22 Jan 1912) (issue of specificity in allegations, where guilt of others is shown, and this defendant knew)

Latimer v U S, 223 US 501; 32 S Ct 242; 56 L Ed 526 (PR, 19 Feb 1912) (case involving tax on tobacco leaves falling on floor, not discarded, but swept up, cleaned and used in cigarettes)

United Cigarette Machine Co v Wright, 193 F 1023 (CA 4, NC, 12 March 1912). SCB: 132 F 195; 156 F 244

Burley Tobacco Society v Monroe, 148 Ky 289; 146 SW 725 (Ky App, 10 May 1912) (tobacco farmer pooling case)

Locker v American Tobacco Co, 197 F 495 (SD NY, 18 July 1912) (conspiracy in restraint of trade case; only government can get a preventive injunction; a private individual can only get after-the-fact damages)

Locker v American Tobacco Co, 200 F 973 (SD NY, 29 Nov 1912) (issue of specificity)

Burley Tobacco Society v Gillaspy, 51 Ind App 583; 100 NE 89 (12 Dec 1912) (case involved effort to void pooling contract as against public policy; at 93, courts know common knowledge)

Norfolk & W.R. Co v Dixie Tobacco Co, 228 US 593; 33 S Ct 609; 57 L Ed 980 (12 May 1913) (issue of damage to tobacco in shipment). SCB: 111 Va 813; 69 SE 1106

American Tobacco Co v People's Tobacco Co, Ltd, 204 F2d 58 (CA 5, La, 12 April 1913) (conspiracy in restraint of trade case)

Lebus v Stansifer, 154 Ky 833; 157 SW 727 (Ky App, 17 June 1913) (pooling case)

International Harvester Co of America v Com of Kentucky, 234 US 216; 34 S Ct 853; 58 L Ed 1284 (8 June 1914) (Kentucky law allowed tobacco growers to market in combination, but banned manufacturers from doing so; convicted IHC in three different courts; IHC appealed on constitutional grounds including vagueness, and prevailed). SCB: (a) 147 Ky 564, 144 SW 1064, (b) 144 Ky 795, 146 SW 12, and (c) 148 Ky 572, 147 SW 1199

Collins v Com. of Kentucky, 234 US 634; 34 S Ct 924; 58 L Ed 1510 (22 June 1914) (farmer convicted for not selling through the tobacco pool, conviction overturned on grounds the state law was unconstitutionally vague). SCB: 141 Ky 565; 133 SW 233

Malone v Com. of Kentucky, 234 US 639; 34 S Ct 926; 58 L Ed 1512 (22 June 1914) (farmer convicted for not selling through the tobacco pool, conviction overturned on grounds the state law was unconstitutionally vague). SCB: 141 Ky 570; 133 SW 235

Locker v American Tobacco Co, 218 F 447 (CA 2, 10 Nov 1914) (a law violation is not proof of harm per se to a private individual)

Incident From the Era:
Tobacco Dealer Firing Smokers
and Refusing To Hire Smokers!
"Superintendent W. L. Bodine, in charge of the Parental School of Chicago, tells of a tobacco dealer who discharged boys because of the cigarette habit and who actually rejected 38 of 42 boys who applied for positions, because they smoked cigarettes. The tobacco dealer said:
'The boys of to-day are not what boys of ten years ago were, and it is due largely to the cigarette evil. They come here with their ill manners, stained fingers, and dopey-eyed cigarette face and cigarette breath; and they are saucy and dirty.'
"This is from a tobacco dealer who would not hire a boy who used what the dealer sold."—Bruce Fink, Tobacco (Cincinnati: The Abingdon Press, 1915), p 48.

Gay v Brent, 179 SW 1051 (Ky App, 23 Nov 1915) (setting legal competition principles in terms of price fixing)

Commonwealth v American Tobacco Co, 167 Ky 157; 180 SW 58 (2 Dec 1915) (price fixing case, remanded to apply the Brent decision)

Balch v State ex rel. Grigsby, Co Atty, 65 Okl 146; 164 P 776 (30 Jan 1917) (public nuisance case, closing a grocery store for violations including selling cigarettes to minors, prostitution, etc.)

American Tobacco Co v Troutman, 175 Ky 436; 194 SW 543 (4 May 1917) (business case, resisting worker compensation claim)

M. B. Fahey Tobacco Co v Senior, 247 F 809 (ED Pa, 22 Dec 1917), aff'd in part, 164 CCA 495; 252 F 579 (CA 3, Pa, 27 July 1918) (copyright and trademark infringement case, one cannot appropriate another's name for one's business, so damages were awarded)

People's Tobacco Co v American Tobacco Co, 246 US 79; 38 S Ct 233; 62 L Ed 587 (4 March 1918) (anti-trust violation case seeking treble damages; issue of processing serving technicality arose)

R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co v City of Lexington, 181 Ky 503; 205 SW 592 (4 Oct 1918) (license case)

Compania General de Tabacoes de Filipinas v Alhambra Cigar, 249 US 72 (Philippines, 3 March 1919) (trade-name infringement case)

United Cigar Stores Co v United Confectioners, 92 NJ Eq 449; 113 A 226; 17 ALR 779 (28 Feb 1921) (unfair competition by deceptive similarity to another's business)

Gray v Central Warehouse Co, 181 NC 166; 106 SE 657 (6 April 1921) (impartiality required for a business open to the public; cannot exclude a buyer not a member of the Board of Trade, notwithstanding that major tobacco companies applied pressure to exclude such buyers, and threatened retaliation) (decision cited with approval by the U.S. Supreme Court in Townsend v Yeomans, 301 US 441; 57 S Ct 842; 81 L Ed 1210 (MD Ga, 24 May 1937)

Federal Trade Commission v P Lorillard Co and American Tobacco Co, Inc, 283 F 999 (D SD NY, J. Manton, 3 Oct 1922) (discovery denied)

Tobacco Growers' Co-op Assn v Jones, 185 NC 265; 117 SE 174; 33 ALR 231 (11 April 1923) (conspiracy in restraint of trade case)

State v P Lorillard Co, 181 Wis 347; 193 NW 613 (1 May 1923) (conspiracy in restaint of trade case)

Northern Wisconsin Cooperative Tobacco Pool v Bekkedal, 182 Wis 571; 197 NW 936 (13 Nov 1923)

Potter v Dark Tobacco Growers' Co-op Assn, 201 Ky 441; 257 SW 33 (Ky App, 21 Dec 1923) (four-year pooling agreement)

Jones v Union Guano Co, 264 US 171; 44 S Ct 280; 68 L Ed 623 (NC, 18 Feb 1924) tobacco farmer case saying deleterious ingredients in fertilizer injured tobacco crop). SCB: 183 NC 338; 111 SE 612

Federal Trade Com'n v Errera, 7 FTC 375 (5 March 1924) (unfair competition by deceptive similarity to another's business)

Federal Trade Commission v American Tobacco Co, 264 US 298; 44 S Ct 336; 68 L Ed 696 (17 March 1924) (denying discovery subpoena to ascertain any unfair competition). SCB: 283 F 999

Dark Tobacco Growers' Co-op Assn v Mason, 150 Tenn 228; 263 SW 60 (Tenn, 7 June 1924) (its arbitrariness, coercion and suppression doesn't necessarily make the association illegal)

Kraus v American Tobacco Co, 72 Penn L J 844 (1924)

Dark Tobacco Growers' Co-op Assn v Dunn, 150 Tenn 614; 266 SW 308 (Tenn, 29 Nov 1924)

R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co v Stringer, 103 So 5 (Miss, 2 March 1925) (product liability case; poisonous snake in tobacco, resulted in smoker's illness)

Kraus v American Tobacco Co, 283 Pa 146; 129 A 60 (13 April 1925). SCB: 72 PLJ 844 (reversed lower decision, issue of wholesale tobacco dealer case alleging manufacturer conspiracy in restraint of trade to control prices at which to resell to retailers)

American Tobacco Co v FTC, 9 F2d 570 (CA 2, J. Manton, 20 Oct 1925) (unfair trade case). SCB: 283 F 999

Kraus v American Tobacco Co, 284 Pa 569; 131 A 487 (23 Nov 1925). SCB: 72 PLJ 844; 283 Pa 146, 129 A 60 (verifying the right of local dealer to sue tobacco company, as its corps of salesman make it engaged in intrastate commerce, hence, allowing suit in state court)

Brame v Dark Tobacco Growers Co-op, 212 Ky 185; 278 SW 597; 62 CJ 1075 n 8 (18 Dec 1925) (stating that in the co-op's charter and marketing agreement, the word "tobacco" means "dark tobacco" as distinct from "burley tobacco." "Burley and dark tobacco are separate and distinct types, are of different character, used for different purposes, and grown in geographically distinct territories, though some burley has always been grown in the dark district and some dark tobacco in the burley district. Burley tobacco is of light weight and color, of thin texture, and is air cured. It is used in the manufacture of cigarettes and cigars, chewing and smoking tobacco, and principally consumed in this country. Dark tobacco . . . is chiefly an export crop; approximately 85 per cent of it being used by foreign countries. It is heavy in weight, thick in texture, dark in color, and with the exception of the stemming and one sucker types is cured by a process known as 'firing' and is used in the manufacture of certain types of cigars, cigarettes, and smoking tobacco for the foreign trade; a small portion being manufactured into snuff and used in the United States. Dark tobacco and burley tobacco are handled differently by the producers, are marketed at different points, purchased by different buyers, and are generally cured, processed, and handled differently. . . . Burley is not manufactured into snuff, which appears to constitute the principal domestic consumption of dark tobacco."

Burley Tobacco Growers Co-op Assn v Rogers, 88 Ind App 469; 150 NE 384 (27 Jan 1926) (conspiracy in restraint of trade case)

List v Burley Tobacco Growers' Co-op Assn, 114 Ohio St 361; 151 NE 471 (16 March 1926) (conspiracy in restraint of trade case)

Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v Danville Warehouse Co, 144 Va 456; 132 SE 482 (16 March 1926) (marketing contract issues, re warehouse determined to be "public")

Burley Tobacco Growers Co-op Assn v Samples, 215 Ky 276; 284 SW 1069 (Ky App, 22 June 1926) (tobacco pooling case; issue of whether the entire crop was delivered, was for the jury to decide)

Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co v United States, 61 Ct Cls 693 (1926)

Burley Tobacco Growers Co-op Assn v Devine, 217 Ky 320; 289 SW 253 (Ky App, 17 Dec 1926) (a tobacco farmer can stop raising tobacco; but not to evade the tobacco pool, via pretense of having transferred the farming to his daughter)

Liberty Warehouse Co v Grannis, Ky Attorney General, 273 US 70; 47 S Ct 282; 71 L Ed 541 (ED Ky, 3 Jan 1927) (declaratory injunction case, issue of validity of Kentucky law regulating leaf tobacco sales at public auction)

Northern Wisconsin Cooperative Tobacco Pool v Oleson, 191 Wis 586; 211 NW 923 (11 Jan 1927)

Beech-Nut Packing Co v P. Lorillard Co, 273 US 629; 47 S Ct 481; 71 L Ed 810 (11 April 1927). SCB: 299 F 834; 7 F2d 967 (issues of unfair competition and trademark infringement)

Federal Trade Commission v American Tobacco Co, 274 US 543; 47 S Ct 663; 71 L Ed 1193 (31 May 1927). SCB: 9 F2d 570

Burley Tobacco Growers Co-op Assn v Pennebaker Home for Girls, 221 Ky 718; 299 SW 734 (25 Oct 1927) (issue of stolen tobacco, in a pooling situation)

Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas v Collector of Internal Rev, 275 US 87; 48 S Ct 100; 72 L Ed 177 (21 Nov 1927) (tax case)

Liberty Warehouse Co v Burley Tobacco Growers' Co-op Marketing, 276 US 71; 48 S Ct 291; 72 L Ed 473 (20 Feb 1928) (private remedy for unlawful trade practices; with history of such cases)

Burley Tobacco Growers Co-op Assn v Boyd, 224 Ky 271; 6 SW2d 241 (Ky App, 1 May 1928) (failure to account for the tobacco delivered to the pool)

Smokador Mfg Co v Tubular Products Co, 27 F2d 948 (D Conn, 18 July 1928) mod and aff'd 31 F2d 255 (CA 2, 4 March 1929) (trademark infringement issues)

Burley Tobacco Growers Co-op Assn v Tipton, 227 Ky 297; 11 SW2d 119 (Ky App, 27 Nov 1928) (case re the 1% fee to the pooling association, issue of its alleged inactivity)

Porto Rican-American Tobacco Co v American Tobacco Co, 30 F2d 234 (CA 2, PR, 7 Jan 1929) cert den 279 US 858; 49 S Ct 353; 73 L Ed 999 (29 April 1929) (monopoly issue, predatory pricing, dumping below cost in Puerto Rico to undercut competition, price cutting actions "foreign to any legitimate commercial competition")

Burley Tobacco Growers Co-op Assn v Roeder, 88 Ind App 649; 165 NE 330 (6 March 1929) (allegations of fraud in case in another state; pursuant to the Constitution, this court honors that court decision, with issue of fraud to be decided there)

Gilchrist v Interborough Rapid Transit Co, 279 US 159; 49 S Ct 282; 73 L Ed 652 (NY, 8 April 1929) (s) (rapid transit rate case, referencing ban on having more than one smoking car per train)

Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas, 279 US 306; 49 S Ct 304; 73 L Ed 704 (8 April 1929). SCB: 26 Philippines Official Gazette #65 p 1712

American Tobacco Co v Porto Rican-American Tobacco Co, 279 US 858; 49 S Ct 353 (1929). SCB 30 F2d 234

Rogers, Richard, Stockholder v American Tobacco Co, 243 Misc 306; 257 NYS 321 (13 March 1931) (stockholder is entitled to see company records)

Scott v P Lorillard Co, 108 N J Eq 153; 154 A 515 (10 April 1931) aff'd 157 A 388 (1931) (stockholder case opposing paying higher dividends on company officers' stock)

Rogers v American Tobacco Co, 233 App Div 708; 249 NYS 993 (8 May 1931) affirming 257 NYS 321

Rogers v Hill, George, President, Am Tobacco Co, 53 F2d 395 (SD NY, 29 Oct 1931) (stockholder case alleging excessive pay to company officials)

Rogers v Hill, Pres, ATC, 53 F2d 398 (SD NY, 29 Oct 1931) (stockholder case alleging excessive pay to company officials)

Rogers v Guaranty Trust Co, 53 F2d 398 (29 Oct 1931) (accompanying stockholder case)

Scott v P Lorillard Co, 157 A 388 (NJ, 10 Dec 1931). SCB 154 A 515

Rogers v Guaranty Trust Co and American Tobacco Co, 60 F2d 106 (SD NY, 16 Feb 1932) (rejection of stockholder case)

Packer Corp v State of Utah, 285 US 105; 52 S Ct 273; 76 L Ed 643 (23 Feb 1932) (advertising ban case). SCB: 78 Utah 177; 2 P2d 114

American Tobacco Co v Grider, 243 Ky 87; 47 SW2d 735 (18 March 1932) (resisting worker compensation claim)

Rogers v Hill, 60 F2d 109 (CA 2, NY, 13 June 1932) (reversing the lower court decision)

Rogers v Guaranty Trust Co and American Tobacco Co, 60 F2d 114 (CA 2, 13 June 1932)

Rogers v Guaranty Trust Co and American Tobacco Co, 288 US 123; 53 S Ct 295; 77 L Ed 652 (23 Jan 1933). SCB: 60 F2d 106; 60 F2d 114

Rogers v Hill, 62 F2d 1079 (CA 2, 6 Feb 1933)

Rogers v Hill, 289 US 582; 53 S Ct 731; 77 L Ed 1385 (29 May 1933). SCB: 62 F2d 1079

Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co v Wallace, 69 SW2d 857 (Tex Civ App, 1 March 1934) (manufacturer is liable for defective product; products must be safe for intended use)

British-American Tobacco Co v Helvering, Com'r of Internal Revenue, 293 US 95; 55 S Ct 55; 79 L Ed 218 (5 Nov 1934) (tax case)

United States v Butler, et al., Receivers of Hoosac Mills Corp, 297 US 1 (1935)

Keith v Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co, 207 NC 645; 178 SE 90 (28 Jan 1935) (injury due to big green bug embedded in tobacco)

Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co v Meyer, 101 Ind App 420; 194 NE 206 (14 Feb 1935) (copyright infringement case alleging using advertising suggestion gratuitously sent to the company)

Burton v Crowell Publishing Co, 82 F2d 154 (CA 2, NY, 10 Feb 1936) (libel case by person photographed for "Camel" cigarette ad, which picture he had not seen until published, had been altered by the photographic process so he alleged it became "grotesque, monstrous, and obscene," and exposed him to "ridicule" and "contempt" having "made of the plaintiff a preposterously ridiculous spectacle" by giving out the impression that he was "guilty of indecent exposure and as being a person physically deformed and mentally perverted" and an "utterer of salacious and obscene language")

Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co v U.S., 299 US 383; 57 S Ct 239; 81 L Ed 294 (4 Jan 1937) (tax case)

Townsend v Yeomans, Attorney General of Georgia, 301 US 441; 57 S Ct 842; 81 L Ed 1210 (MD Ga, 24 May 1937) (tobacco warehousemen fees case, challenging enforcement of a Georgia law fixing maximum charges for handling and selling leaf tobacco, on the basis that tobacco warehousing is primarily interstate commerce)

R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co v Robertson, Com'r of Internal Revenue, 304 US 563 (25 April 1938). SCB: 22 F Supp 187; 94 F2d 167 (tax case)

Philip Morris and Co v Stephano Brothers, 331 Pa 278; 200 A 605 (30 June 1938) (issue of dividends on preferred stock, reversing lower court decision)

Matter of Julep Tobacco Co, 27 FTC 1637 (27 Sep 1938) (misrepresentations, making health claims for cigarettes!)

Matter of Green River Tobacco Co, 27 FTC 1547 (7 Nov 1938) (multiple unfair methods of competition including deception)

Currin v Wallace, Sec'y of Agriculture, 306 US 1; 59 S Ct 379; 83 L Ed 441 (NC, 30 Jan 1939). SCB: 19 F Supp 211; 95 F2d 856 (tobacco warehousemen and auctioneers challenged the constitutionality of the federal Tobacco Inspection Act on the basis that tobacco warehousing is primarily in-state commerce; the Court oted the contradiction with the position taken in Townsend v Yeoman, supra. Evidently tobacco pushers don't want to be controlled period.)

Helvering, Com'r of Internal Revenue v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco CO, 306 US 110 (30 Jan 1939). SCB: 97 F2d 302; 35 BTA 949 (tax case)

Mulford v Smith, 307 US 38; 59 S Ct 648; 83 L Ed 1092 (17 April 1939). SCB: 24 F Supp 919. (case upholding the tobacco quota system, describes the process by which tobacco farmers sell, and price fluctuations. The dissent deemed the quota a punishment for selling in excess of quota, and argued that "Punishment for selling is the exact equivalent of punishment for raising the tobacco." )

Heller v Boylan, 36 NYS 2d 292 (26 Oct 1939) (issue of bad faith and unskillness in presenting prior case)

Rogers v Hill, 34 F Supp 358 (SD NY, 27 March 1940) (request to reopen prior case, other stockholders alleged fraud in the prior Rogers cases, request denied)

Stone v Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co, 260 App Div 450; 23 NYS2d 210 (1 Nov 1940). SCB: 172 Misc 591; 14 NYS2d 922. (copyright infringement case alleging using advertising suggestion gratuitously sent to the company, ruled too abstract to be payable)

In the Matter of Phillip Morris & Co, Ltd., 32 FTC 278-291 (31 Dec 1940) (multiple unfair and deceptive practices)

Axton-Fisher Tobacco Co v Ziffrin Trunk Lines, 36 F Supp 777 (WD Ky, 10 Feb 1941) (cigarettes shipment case, issue of shipper responsibility, and insurance and/or common law liability)

In the Matter of Detroit Candy & Tobacco Jobbers Assn, Inc, 33 FTC 1193-1204 (27 Aug 1941) (multiple unfair methods including coercion, to suppress competition)

United States v American Tobacco Co, 39 F Supp 957 (ED Ky, 4 Aug 1941) (unlawful monoply case, issue of expert witness opinion requiring a factual foundation)

Cuno Engineering Corp v Automatic Devices Corp, 314 US 84; 62 S Ct 37; 86 L Ed 58 (10 Nov 1941) SCB: 34 F Supp 144; 34 F Supp 146; 117 F2d 361 (patent infringement case involving electric lighters for cigars and cigarettes, showing workmanship or technology progression, involving lower courts disagreeing, e.g., Automatic Devices Corp v Sinko Tool & Manufacturing Co, 112 F2d 335 (CA 7, ND Ill, 27 April 1940). A patent by Copeland (No. 1,844,206), filed April 18, 1927, occurred before Mead's, filed August 24, 1927. The Supreme Court concluded that the later alteration did not meet the requirement for patenting).

Heller v Boylan, 29 NYS 2d 653 (27 May 1941) aff'd 263 App Div 815; 32 NYS2d 131 (19 Dec 1941) (stockholder case alleging personal loan by George Hill to himself, using corporate funds; courts said, courts hesitate to interfere in corporate affairs, unless there is fraud by management)

In the Matter of Detroit Candy & Tobacco Jobbers Assn, Inc, 33 FTC 1193 (1941)

National Labor Relations Board v P. Lorillard Co, 314 US 512; 62 S Ct 397; 86 L Ed 380 (5 Jan 1942) (unfair labor practices, ordered to obey NLRB decision)

Heller v Boylan, 263 App Div 852; 32 NYS 2d 1011 (13 Jan 1942). SCB 29 NYS 2d 653; 263 App Div 815; 32 NYS2d 131

Penn Tobacco Co, 34 FTC 1636 (9 Feb 1942)

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co, 34 FTC 1689 (22 May 1942)

American Tobacco Co v Whitney Transfer Co, 291 Ky 281; 163 SW2d 817 (Ky App, 19 June 1942) (case involving shipper fire destroying cigarettes in transit)

London Tobacco Co, 36 FTC 282 (10 March 1943)

American Tobacco Co v Harrison, 181 Va 800; 27 SE2d 181 (11 Oct 1943) (tobacco truck hit child, issue of failure to look, discussion of child-negligence concept, a general principle significant for showing how to take advantage of children; children cannot legally authorize negligence of others, but children are of course the victim of same [others' negligence], compare Polisco, supra)

Thomas v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 350 Pa 262; 38 A2d 61 (30 June 1944) (copyright infringement case alleging breach of contract by not paying to use "Camel" advertising suggestion gratuitously sent to the company)

American Tobacco Co, et al v United States, 147 F2d 93 (CA 6, Ky, 4 Dec 1944) (unlawful monopoly case). SCB: 39 F Supp 957

R. L. Swain Co, Inc, 41 FTC 312 (28 Nov 1945)

American Tobacco Co v U.S, 328 US 781; 66 S Ct 1125; 90 L Ed 1575 (Ky, 10 June 1946) (unlawful monoply practices case). SCB: 39 F Supp 957; 147 F2d 93 (Some years later, in U.S. v du Pont & Co, 351 US 377; 76 S Ct 527; 100 L Ed 565 (11 June 1946), another monopoly case (75% of cigarettes wrapped in cellophane), in the course of distinguishing types of monopolies, e.g., those arising from extraordinary commercial success, as distinct from those "that . . . involved something like the use of means which made it impossible for other persons to engage in fair competition," and giving examples including this case, it admitted that here it didn't say one way or the other).

Advance Music Corp v American Tobacco Co, 183 Misc 855; 51 NYS2d 692 (2 Dec 1944) rev'd 268 App Div 707; 53 NYS2d 337 (23 Feb 1945) rev'd 70 NYS2d; 296 NY 79; 70 NE2d 401 (21 Nov 1946) (allegations of misrepresentations constituting a "prima-facie" tort, pretending that the "top ten" most popular songs were chosen by accurate research, vs. in reality, caprice)

Bauman's Administrator v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co, 305 Ky 344; 204 SW2d 327 (27 May 1947) (tobacco company worker killed on job during horseplay, when coworker splashed alcohol on him, told another to strike a match, Bauman went up in flames and was killed)

United States v Paramount Pictures, 334 US 131 (1948) (case setting precedent for later tobacco cases)

Triangle Conduit & Cable Co v FTC, 168 F2d 175 (CA 7, 12 May 1948) affd sub nom Clayton Mark & Co v FTC, 336 US 956 (1949)

Clayton Mark & Co v FTC, 336 US 956 (1949). SCB 168 F2d 175

Gentry v Alexander, 311 Ky 344; 224 SW2d 143 (1 Nov 1949) ("Traditional tobacco culture involves planting seeds in a small bed, and then in 8 to 10 weeks transplanting the seedlings into the field for cultivation to maturity and final harvesting." 47 ALR3d 784, 798 n 15).   Moreover, "tobacco-raising injures the farms," says Meta Lander, The Tobacco Problem (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1882), p 52.   "The large-scale cultivation of tobacco required huge tracts of land, the more so because it [tobacco] wore out the soil at a prodigious rate," says James A. Maxwell, ed., America's Fascinating Indian Heritage (Pleasantville, NY: Reader's Digest Assn Inc, 1978), p 152.     Tobacco leaves' many ingredients exhaust the soil, "beyond all other crops," impacting "future generations," thus tobacco has been disfavored "by the best farmers." For background, see Prof. Avery O. Craven, Soil Exhaustion as a Factor in the Agricultural History of Virginia and Maryland, 1606-1860 (Urbana, Illinois, 1926). “Apart from deforestation and soil degradation, tobacco farming is associated with the destruction of ground water resources, sedimentation of rivers, reservoirs and irrigation systems, climate change, and species extinction due to habitat fragmentation and overexploitation . . . 'Tobacco absorbs more nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium than other major food and cash crops, and therefore, tobacco growing decreases soil fertility more rapidly than other crops,' says Wilma Stassen, “Tobacco Harmful to Those Who Farm It” (Pretoria News, 7 August 2012). See also Gabriel Thompson, “Why are Children Working American Tobacco Fields?” (The Nation, 12 November 2013), saying “Young farm workers are falling ill from 'green tobacco sickness' while the industry denies it and government lets it happen.”

Matter of P. Lorillard Tobacco Co, 46 FTC 706 (13 March 1950)

Matter of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 46 FTC 735 (31 March 1950)

Matter of P. Lorillard Tobacco Co, 46 FTC 853 (24 May 1950)

P. Lorillard Co v Federal Trade Commission, 186 F2d 52 (CA 4, 29 Dec 1950)

R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co v Federal Trade Commission, 192 F2d 535 (CA 7, 1 Nov 1951)

Matter of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 48 FTC 682 (17 Jan 1952)

Federal Trade Commission v Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co, 108 F Supp 573 (D SD NY, 1 Dec 1952)

Philip Morris & Co, Ltd, Inc, 49 FTC 703 (29 Dec 1952)

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co v U.S., 201 F2d 819 (CA 6, Ky, 11 Feb 1953) (suit to recover excessive profits, defenses allowed)

Federal Trade Commission v Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co, 203 F2d 955 (CA 2, NY, 4 May 1953). SCB: 108 F Supp 573

Moore v Mead's Fine Bread Co, 348 US 115; 75 S Ct 148; 99 L Ed 145 (6 Dec 1954) (Issue of company having cut prices in intrastate transactions in petitioner's locality, thus driving petitioner out of business. Suit for triple damages. Congress banned the use of interstate business to destroy local business, pursuant to its power under the Commerce Clause to prevent the opportunities afforded by interstate commerce from being employed to injure local trade; decision cited case law back to the Porto Rican-American Tobacco Co case)

General Drivers, Warehousemen, & Helpers, Local Union No. 89 v American Tobacco Co, 264 SW2d 250 (Ky, 2 June 1953 mod 5 Feb 1954) rev'd 348 US 978; 75 S Ct 569; 99 L Ed 762 (4 April 1955) (labor relations issues including union picketing)

Dalehite v U.S., 346 US 15; 73 S Ct 956; 97 L Ed 1427 (8 June 1953). SCB: 197 F2d 771 (issue of smoking-caused fire case, with large explosion killing 560 and injuring 3,000 people)

U.S. v Cigarette Merchandisers Assn, 18 FRD 497 (SD NY, 27 Oct 1955) (anti-trust violations, deferring civil case pending outcome of criminal case)

U.S. v Cigarette Merchandisers Assn, 136 F Supp 214 (SD NY, 23 Nov 1955) (criminal anti-trust violations case; all defendants pleaded nolo contendere except this one, alleging that per corporation dissolution, the charge should be dropped as in the case of the death of a person, the court said no)

Mitchell, Sec'y of Labor v J. T. Budd & Co, et al, 114 F Supp 865 (Fla) rev 221 F2d 406 rev 350 US 473; 76 S Ct 527; 100 L Ed 565 (26 March 1956) (tobacco manufacturing employees pay case; employers claimed their functions were in farming but the alterations in the product were so significant and protracted as to be deemed more akin to manufacturing process; the case provides a significant description of the tobacco farming/manufacturing process)

Matter of Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co, 55 FTC 354 (17 Sep 1958)

Export Leaf Tobacco Co v American Insurance Co, 260 F2d 839 (CA 4, Va, 14 Oct 1958) (tobacco auction warehouse fire)

Matter of Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co, 56 FTC 956 (24 Feb 1960)

Delaware Valley Marine Supply Co v American Tobacco Co, 184 F Supp 440 (ED Pa, 9 June 1960) (local store sued alleging manufacturer conspiracy in restraint of trade for refusal to sell cigarettes to the store) and 199 F Supp 560 (ED Pa, 16 Nov 1960). SCB: 184 F Supp 440 (costs issue) affirmed 297 F2d 199 (CA 3, 8 Dec 1961)

Hussey, et al v Campbell, Comm'r of Agriculture of Georgia, et al, 189 F Supp 54 (SD Georgia, 9 Nov 1960) aff'd 368 US 297; 82 S Ct 327; 7 L Ed 2d 299 (18 Dec 1961). (Hussey et al were tobacco warehouse owners and operators. They filed suit against the Georgia tobacco labeling law, saying that the Federal Tobacco Inspection Act labeling clause pre-empts Georgia's. They won. Campbell, the Agriculture Commissioner of Georgia, appealed. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Georgia law was pre-empted, so he could not enforce it. The label difference was this: the federal law required labels to be blue, the Georgia law required white. four dissenting judges traced the history of tobacco marketing, primarily local for centuries, until the federal law occurred).

US v Philadelphia Nat. Bank, 374 US 321; 83 S Ct 1715; 10 L Ed 2d 915 (17 June 1963) (cites monopoly overview. Cases not on tobacco periodically use the tobacco example, revealing aspects about the matter. This case on monopoly power gave this example: "Representative Celler indicated the extent of concentration of industrial power: 'Four companies now have 64 percent of the steel business, four have 82 percent of the copper business, two have 90 percent of the aluminum business, three have 85 percent of the automobile business, two have 80 percent of the electric lamp business, four have 75 percent of the electric refrigerator business, two have 80 percent of the glass business, four have 90 percent of the cigarette business, and so forth. The antitrust laws are a complete bust unless we pass this bill.' 95 Cong. Rec. 11485 (1949)."

Sellars v State, 237 Md 58; 205 A2d 296 (7 Dec 1964) (stolen cigarettes)

State v Footlick, 2 Ohio St 2d 206; 31 Ohio Ops 2d 411; 207 NE2d 759 (2 June 1965) (10 ALR4th 246, § 13, pp 323-4; conviction for selling merchandise including tobacco on Sunday)

Epstein dba Stratford International Tobacco Co v Lordi, 261 F Supp 921 (D NJ, 14 Dec 1966) aff'd 389 US 29; 88 S Ct 106; 19 L Ed 2d 29 (NJ, 16 Oct 1967) (licensing case, unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce, tobacco company role in liquor selling)

State v Hunt, 198 Kansas 222; 424 P2d 571 (4 March 1967) (stolen cigarettes)

Quarles v Philip Morris, 271 F Supp 842 (ED VA, Richmond, 11 April 1967) (civil rights violations case)

Lordi v Epstein dba Stratford International Tobacco Co, 261 F Supp 921 (D NJ, 1967) aff'd 389 US 29; 88 S Ct 106; 19 L Ed 2d 29 (NJ, 16 Oct 1967)

Quarles v Philip Morris, 279 F Supp 505 (ED Va, Richmond, 4 Jan 1968) (civil rights violations case). SCB: 271 F Supp 842

Bucci v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 57 Del Co 122 (Pa Com Pl, 7 Aug 1969) affirmed 439 Pa 302; 268 A2d 88 (13 July 1970) (ex-employee case to obtain profit sharing plan benefits lost due to unjust discharge; jury did not believe company accussations against Bucci)

Levan v Philip Morris Tobacco Co, 459 SW2d 73 (Ky App, 16 Oct 1970) (worker compensation case)

Calvert v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co, 465 SW2d 75 (Ky, 19 March 1971) (resisting worker compensation claim)

McCrary v Philip Morris, Inc, 472 SW2d 882 (Ky App, 5 Nov 1971) (worker compensation case, injury causing some permanent damage requires offering permanent partial disability payments)

Bailey v American Tobacco Co, 462 F2d 160 (CA 6, Ky, 16 June 1972) on remand WD Ky 1975 WL 298 (employment discrimination case, issue of pattern of racial discrimination and segregation)

Cooper v Philip Morris, Inc, 464 F2d 9; 20 ALR Fed 957 (CA 6, Ky, 29 June 1972) on remand, WD Ky 1974 WL 318 (employment discrimination, employee civil rights case)

Saxer v Philip Morris Inc, 54 Cal App 3d 7; 126 Cal Rptr 327 (23 March 1975) (allegations of conspiracy, restraint of trade, etc., remanded for plaintiff's day in court)

Pons v Lorillard, 69 FRD 576 (NC, 21 Jan 1976) (employee age discrimination case, jury trial issue)

Pons v Lorillard, 549 F2d 950 (CA 4, NC, 2 Feb 1977) rev'd 434 US 575; 98 S Ct 866; 55 L Ed 2d 40 (employee age discrimination case, jury trial issue). SCB: 69 FRD 576

Liggett & Myers, Inc v Federal Trade Commission, 567 F2d 1273 (CA 4, 29 Dec 1977)

Lewis v Tobacco Workers Int'l Union, 577 F2d 1135 (CA 4, 10 May 1978) (employee discrimination case)

Federal Trade Commission v Carter, 464 F Supp 633 (D DC, 25 Jan 1979)

Matter of Eli Witt Co, Philip Morris, Inc v Eli Witt Co, 2 BR 492 (D MD Fla, 5 Feb 1980) (bankruptcy case)

Federal Trade Commission v Carter, 205 US App DC 73; 636 F2d 781 (28 Nov 1980). SCB: 464 F Supp 633

Ehringhaus v Federal Trade Commission, 525 F Supp 21 (D DC, 23 Dec 1980)

Matter of Eli Witt Co, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co v Eli Witt Co, 12 BR 757 (D MD Fla, 7 July 1981)

In re Eli Witt Co, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp v Eli Witt Co, 16 BR 197 (D MD Fla, 16 Nov, 28 Dec 1981)

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp v Federal Trade Commission, 710 F2d 1165 (CA 6, 24 June 1983)

Whitworth v Fast Fare Markets of South Carolina, Inc, 289 SC 418; 338 SE2d 155; 55 ALR4th 1235 (17 Dec 1985) (tobacco sales to youths issue)

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co v Jacobson, 713 F2d 262 (CA 7, 14 July 1983); 644 F Supp 1240 (ND Ill, 7 Aug 1986) aff'd 827 F2d 1119 (CA 7, Ill, 12 Aug 1987) cert den 485 US 993; 108 S Ct 1302; 99 L Ed 2d 512 (4 April 1988) (tobacco taboo case)

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp v Federal Trade Commission, 717 F2d 963 (CA 6, 19 Sep 1983). SCB: 710 F2d 1165

Federal Trade Commission v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, 580 F Supp 981 (D DC, 14 Oct 1983)

Philip Morris v Pittsburgh Penguins, Inc, 589 F Supp 912 (WD Pa, 31 Oct 1983) (Pennsylvania case, issue of tobacco advertising on scoreboard)

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp v Federal Trade Commission, 465 US 1100; 104 S Ct 595; 80 L Ed 2d 127 (19 March 1984). SCB: 710 F2d 1165; 717 F2d 963

Philip Morris v Pittsburgh Penguins, Inc, 738 F2d 424 (CA 3, Pa, 21 June 1984). SCB: 589 F Supp 912

Ring v R. J. Reynolds Industries, Inc, 597 F Supp 1277 (ND Ill, 27 Nov 1984) (employee discharge case)

Leaf Tobacco Exporters Ass'n v John Block, Sec'y of Agriculture, 749 F2d 1106 (CA 4, NC, 5 Dec 1984) (case objecting to Ag Dep't allowing sales directly to foreign markets)

Philip Morris v American Shipping Co, Inc, 748 F2d 563 (CA 11, SD Fla, 10 Dec 1984) (tobacco cargo damage case)

Philip Morris v American Shipping Co, Inc, 753 F2d 1087 (CA 11, SD Fla, 21 Jan 1985). SCB: 748 F2d 563

Philip Morris v John Block, Sec'y of Agriculture, 755 F2d 368 (CA 4, 13 Feb 1985) (employee case, anti-discrimination office OFCCP with jurisdiction of contracts over $2500, gave employees alleging job discrimination more time IAW 29 USC § 793.(b) in which to file their case, over employer objection)

In re Loew's Theatres, Inc, 769 F2d 764; 226 USPQ 865 (CA Fed, 9 Aug 1985) (trademark application)

Federal Trade Commission v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, 250 US App DC 162; 778 F2d 35 (10 and 18 Dec 1985). SCB: 580 F Supp 981

R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co v Southern Railway Co, 110 FRD 95 (MD NC, 10 April 1986) (issues of shipment in contaminated railroad car, and failure to mitigate)

Deschler v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., 797 F2d 695 (CA 8, Mo, 8 Aug 1986) (employee discharge case)

Philip Morris v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co, 641 F Supp 1438 (MD Ga, 20 Aug 1986) (allegations of anti-trust violations, patent infringement, and breach of contract, with triple damage request; the court awarded damages of 12¢/lb on first 50 million lbs, then 9¢/lb thereafter)

Philip Morris v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co, 645 F Supp 174 (MD Ga, 7 Oct 1986). SCB: 641 F Supp 1438

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co v Liggett & Myers Tobacco Corp, 116 FRD 205 (MD NC, 10 Nov 1986) (discovery case)

R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co v Durham County, 479 US 130; 107 S Ct 499; 93 L Ed 2d 449 (9 Dec 1986) (tax case). SCB: 314 NC 540; 335 SE 2d 21

American Tobacco Co v Evans, 508 So 2d 1057; 2 USPQ2d 1866; 75 ALR4th 997 (Miss, 29 April 1987) (censorship issue arising in dangerous tobacco case pursuant to company policy of seeking secrecy)

Thomas J. Kline, Inc v Lorillard, Inc, 674 F Supp 183 (D Md, 6 Oct 1987) rev 878 F2d 791 (CA 4, Md, 30 June 1989) reh den, cert den 493 US 1073; 110 S Ct 1120; 107 L Ed 2d 1027 (20 Feb 1990) (tobacco distributor vs. manufacturer case, with anti-trust and breach of sales contract allegations)

Fitch v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 675 F Supp 132 (SD NY, 16 Dec 1987) (employee discharge case)

Keating v Philip Morris Inc, 417 NW2d 132 (Minn App, 22 Dec 1987) (retailer's price-fixing anti-trust case)

Mt. Sinai School of Medicine v American Tobacco Co, Philip Morris, and R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 866 F2d 552 (CA 2, NY, 23 Jan 1989) (tobacco companies tried to force release of medical study data; the Medical School objected but was not allowed to appeal the subpoena order unless it defied the order, and was found in contempt for non-compliance)

American Tobacco Co v Superior Court, 208 Cal App 3d 480; 255 Cal Rptr 280; CCH Prod Liab Rep ¶ 12120 (6 Feb and 8 March 1989) (dangerous tobacco case, significant for showing impact of special interest legislation, here, a special law banning smokers' rights to sue for injury caused by tobacco)

Booker v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., Inc., 879 F2d 1304 (CA 6, Mich., 3 July 1989) (employee discrimination case)

Cipollone v Liggett Group, Inc, 893 F2d 541; CCH Prod Liab Rep ¶ 12329; 10 UCCRS2d 625 (CA 3, NJ, 5 Jan 1990). SCB: 693 F Supp 208

Bishop v Philip Morris, USA, 771 F Supp 188 (WD Ky, 22 Feb 1990) (employee discharge case)

Imperial Tobacco, Ltd v Philip Morris, Inc, 899 F2d 1575; 14 USPQ2d 1390 (CA Fed, 1990) (trademark case)

Medina-Munoz v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 896 F3d 5 (CA 1, PR, 15 Feb 1990) (employee age discrimination case)

Kyte v Philip Morris, Inc, 408 Mass 162; 556 NE2d 1025; CCH Prod Liab Rep ¶ 12607 (25 July 1990) (lawsuit re pattern of unlawful sales to minors, alleging store engaged in concerted action with manufacturer) (related definitions)

Brooke Group Ltd v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, 748 F Supp 344 (MD NC, 27 Aug 1990) (allegation of conspiracy to undercut prices reflecting predatory practices)

Comeaux v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co, 915 F2d 1264 (CA 9, Calif, 26 Sep 1990) (a business practices case by a job applicant, alleging wrongful failure to hire)

Lamb v Philip Morris, Inc, 915 F2d 1024 (CA 6, Ky, 28 Sep 1990) cert den 498 US 1086; 111 S Ct 961; 112 L Ed 2d 1048 (19 Feb 1991) (domestic growers' case against tobacco importers alleging violations of antitrust law and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act)

Bishop v Philip Morris, USA, 915 F2d 1570 (CA 6, Ky, 2 Oct 1990). SCB: 771 F Supp 188 (employee discharge case)

McSorley v Philip Morris, Inc, 170 App Div 2d 440; 565 NYS2d 537 (4 Feb 1991) app dism 77 NY2d 990; 571 NYS2d 915; 575 NE2d 401 (9 May 1991) (allegation of practice of failure to warn of foreseeable harm to unborn fetus)

Philip Morris Capital Corp v Bering Trader, Inc, 944 F2d 500 (CA 9, 10 Sep 1991)

Philip Morris Capital Corp v Century Power Corp, 778 F Supp 141 (SD NY, 25 Oct 1991) (securities fraud case)

Bradley v Philip Morris, Inc, 194 Mich App 44; 486 NW2d 48 (29 Oct 1991) (unjust discharge case; fired employees won at jury trial, employer began a round of three appeals seeking a new trial)

Mangini v R J Reynolds Tobacco Co, 793 F Supp 925 (ND Cal, 12 March 1992) (injunction case concerning "Joe Camel" advertising re children; a "private attorney general" case on advertising as an unfair/unlawful business practice; remand to state courts)

Philip Morris Capital Corp v Century Power Corp, 788 F Supp 794 (SD NY, 6 April 1992). SCB: 778 F Supp 141 (securities fraud)

Brooke Group Ltd v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, 964 F2d 335 (CA 4, NC, 11 May 1992) aff'd 509 US 209 (1993) (allegation of conspiracy to undercut prices reflecting predatory practices)

Cipollone v Liggett Group, Inc, 505 US 504; 112 S Ct 2608; 120 L Ed 2d 407 (24 June 1992). SCB: 693 F Supp 208; 893 F2d 541 (issue of whether federal cigarette law preempts state law damage claims)

Bradley v Philip Morris, Inc, 440 Mich 870; 486 NW2d 737 (15 July 1992). SCB: 194 Mich App 44; 486 NW2d 48

Palmer v Del Webb's High Sierra, 108 Nev 673; 838 P2d 435 (1 Sep 1992) (worker comp case, nonsmoker got lung cancer from disproportionate number of smokers gambling pursuant to the smoking-gambling link, as per their acalculia, a medical factor taken advantage of by gambling establishments encouraging smoking as a matter of business practice)

Bakery, Confectionary and Tobacco Workers Local Union No. 362-T, AFL-CIO v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, 971 F2d 652 (CA 11, Georgia, 3 Sep 1992) (employee arbitration case, re health plan issues)

Brooke Group Ltd. v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, 506 US 984; 113 S Ct 490; 121 L Ed 2d 428 (1993)

Shaw v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 818 F Supp 1539 (MD Fla, 20 April 1993) (employee allegations including of defamation)

Mangini v R J Reynolds Tobacco Co, 21 Cal Rptr 2d 232 (Cal App 1st, 14 July 1993) (injunction case concerning "Joe Camel" advertising re children). SCB: 793 F Supp 925

Sanchez v Philip Morris, Inc, 774 F Supp 626 (WD Okla, 24 Sep 1991) (Hispanic employee discrimination case; received award of 36 months front pay)

Tatum v Philip Morris, Inc, 809 F Supp 1452 (WD Oklahoma, 10 Dec 1992) (employee gender discrimination case)

Marie Kuhn v Philip Morris U.S.A., Inc, 814 F Supp 450 (ED, Penn, 2 March 1993) (employee sex discrimination case)

Bradley v Philip Morris, Inc, 199 Mich App 194; 501 NW2d 246 (5 April 1993). SCB: 440 Mich 870; 486 NW2d 737

Sanchez v Philip Morris, Inc, 992 F2d 244 (CA 10, Oklahoma, 20 April 1993) (Hispanic employee discrimination case). SCB: 774 F Supp 626

Brooke Group Ltd. v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, 509 US 209; 113 S Ct 2578; 125 L Ed 2d 168 (21 June 1993) (allegation of conspiracy to undercut prices reflecting predatory practices). SCB: 964 F2d 335

Paugh v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 834 F Supp 228 (ND Ohio, 29 Sep 1993) (dangerous tobacco case involving allegations of tobacco company fraud by widow)

Moore v Philip Morris Companies, Inc, 8 F3d 335 (CA 6, Ky, 13 Oct 1993) (employee's widow pension case)

Brooke Group Ltd. v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, 509 US 940; 114 S Ct 13; 125 L Ed 2d 765 (1993) (c)

Goodman v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, 891 F Supp 505 (Arizona, 7 Dec 1993) (employee discharge case)

Bradley v Philip Morris, Inc, 444 Mich App 644; 513 NW2d 797 (1 March 1994) (employee unjust discharge case). SCB: 199 Mich App 194; 501 NW2d 246

Crumpton v Philip Morris, U.S.A., 845 F Supp 1421 (D Colo, 4 March 1994) (employee race discrimination case)

Wiggins v Philip Morris, Inc, 853 F Supp 457 (DDC, 13 May 1994) (employee case with issues including alleging boss used drugs)

Wiggins v Philip Morris, Inc, 853 F Supp 458 (DDC, 13 May 1994) (employee case)

Wiggins v Philip Morris, Inc, 853 F Supp 470 (DDC, 13 May 1994) (employee case)

Mangini v R J Reynolds Tobacco Co, 7 Cal 4th 1057; 31 Cal Rptr 2d 358; 875 P2d 73 (30 June 1994). SCB: 20 Cal Rptr 2d 232; 793 F Supp 925

Mary Davies v Philip Morris, U.S.A., 863 F Supp 1430 (D Colo, 17 Oct 1994) (employee sex discrimination case)

Michael v Shiley, Inc, Case 94-0959, 46 F3d 1316 (CA 3, ED Pennsylvania, 24 Oct 1994) cert den 516 US 815; 116 S Ct 67; 133 L Ed 2d 29 (legal issues of law 15 § 1331, et seq., vis-a-vis fraudulent promotion of harmful product)

Philip Morris Tobacco Co v Star Tobacco Co, 879 F Supp 379 (SD NY, 21 March 1995) (trademark and trade dress issues, promoting/advertising "Marlboro" v "Gunsmoke" brand, success despite Surgeon General warnings)

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co v CSX Transport, 882 F Supp 511 (ED NC, 5 April 1995) (fire case, teens burned warehouse)

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp v Merrell Williams, et al, Case No. 94-5171, 314 US App DC 85; 62 F3d 408 (15 Aug 1995) (lawsuit re whistleblower-provided documents to Congress, causing chink in tobacco taboo eventually the coumarin exposé)

Adams v Philip Morris, Inc, Case 95-0309 / 94-5608, 67 F3d 580 (CA 6, WD Kentucky, 18 Oct 1995) (c) (white male discrimination case, alleging black hired in his stead lacked experience with high speed cigarette machines)

San Leandro Emergency Medical Group Profit Sharing Plan v Philip Morris Companies, Inc, 75 F3d 801 (CA 2, NY, 25 Jan 1996) (securities fraud allegations). SCB: 872 F Supp 97

R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co v Mangini, 513 US 1016; 115 S Ct 577; 130 L Ed 2d 493; 1994 US LEXIS 8361 (28 Nov 1994). SCB: 793 F Supp 925; 21 Cal Rptr 2d 232 (Cal App 1st, 1993) aff'd 7 Cal 4th 1057; 31 Cal Rptr 2d 358; 875 P2d 73 (1994) (injunction case concerning "Joe Camel" advertising re children)

Dibrell Brothers Int'l S.A. v Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, Case No. 93-8452 (CA 11, ND Georgia, 2 Dec 1994) (trade case, tobacco shipment contract)

In Re Philip Morris Securities Litigation, 872 F Supp 97 (SD NY, 9 Jan 1995)

Philip Morris, Inc v Star Tobacco Corp, 879 F Supp 379 (SD NY, 21 March 1995) (trademark infringement case, re trade "dress")

Chiglo v City of Preston and Mike Sveen, 909 F Supp 675 (D Minn, 13 Nov 1995) aff'd 104 F3d 185 (CA 8, D Minn, 6 Jan 1997) (cigarette advertising over area parents' objection) (commentary)

San Leandro Emergency Medical Group v Phillip Morris Co, Case 95-7156, 75 F3d 801 (CA 2, SD New York, 25 Jan 1996) (class action, securities fraud, insider trading allegations, related to prime cigarette sales decline due to discount cigarettes, and alleging stockholder rights violation, and citing prior precedent, In Re Philip Morris Securities Litigation, 872 F Supp 97

King v Hofer, 42 Cal App 4th 678; 49 Cal Rptr 2d 719 (8 Feb 1996) (civil rights case, retaliation issue, nonsmoker alleged that restauranteur said he'd be denied future admittance for having reported restaurant for non-compliance with the no-smoking rule)

United States v Martin dba Burley Tobacco Warehouse, Case No. 95-5701, F3d (CA 6, Ryan, ED Tenn, 5 Sep 1996) (selling excess tobacco above quota)

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp v Wigand, 913 F Supp 530 (WD Ky, 24 Nov 1996) (litigation concerning Dr. Wigand, the famous exposer of coumarin in tobacco, long kept secret due to the tobacco taboo.)

Philip Morris/Kraft Foods, Inc v WCAB (Levan), 689 A2d 986 (Pa Cmnwlth, 29 Jan 1997). SCB: WCAB A95-0209 (Pennsylvania worker compensation case)

Winstead v United States, Case No. 95-2875, F3d (CA 4, MD NC, 1 April 1997) (tax case involving tobacco farmer with sharecroppers, showing a glimpse into how the ancient system still operates)

Patricia Effinger v Philip Morris, USA, 984 F Supp 1043 (WD Ky, 4 June 1997) (employee sexual harassment case)

Sackman v Liggett Group, Inc, 965 F Supp 391 (ED NY, 9 June 1997) (lung cancer case, issues include unlawfulness of tobacco company doing a legal act in an illegal manner). SCB: 167 FRD 9

United States v John Zaragoza, Case No. 96-2041 (CA 7, ND Ind, 25 June 1997) (tobacco store owner, financial difficulties, arson, insurance fraud, racketeering)

Warner-Lambert Co v A & A Candy & Tobacco Co, Case No. 96-1334 (CA 4, Maryland, 5 Aug 1997) (trademark infringement and unfair competition case)

Philip Morris, Inc. v Blumenthal, Attorney General, Case No. 97-7122 (CA 2, Connecticut, 12 Sep 1997) (re lawsuit for damages and to enjoin unfair trade practices)

Small v Lorillard Tobacco Co, 175 Misc 2d 294, 668 NYS 2d 307 (28 Oct 1997) (smoker class action case alleging tobacco company manipulation of nicotine levels, and fraudulent concealment of addiction) and 176 Misc 2d 413, 672 NYS2d 601 (28 Oct 1997) (denying tobacco company motion to dismiss smokers' class action case) reversed 252 App Div 2d 1; 679 NYS2d 593 (29 Oct 1998) (smokers' rights case, lost due to tobacco company opposition) aff'd 94 NY2d 43; 698 NYS 2d 615; 720 NE2d 892 (NY, 26 Oct 1999)

USA v Trapilo, Case No. 97-1011 (CA 2, ND NY, 5 Dec 1997) (case involving cigarette smuggling to evade Canadian tax)

Cole v US Dept. of Agriculture, Case No. 96-9069 (CA 11, MD Georgia, 21 Jan 1998) (excess marketing of tobacco above quota, lacking required transaction records, selling more than reported buying)

Ciarlante v Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp and American Tobacco Co, 143 F3d 139; Case No. 98-1850 (CA 3, ED Penn, 30 April 1998) (class action by sales reps of whom large numbers were fired without notice on corp merger, citing Chevron argument and alleging violation of the law requiring notice when over 50 are fired by the same office). SCB: 1996 WL 656448 (judgment for employees); 1996 WL 741973 (reconsideration denial); 1997 WL 611679 (damages order)

Robert Burton Assoc v Preston Trucking Co, Case 98-1905 (CA 3, D New Jersey, 10 July 1998) (shipper lost 81 cases of cigarette papers, issue of whether to reimburse at market value or replacement cost)

R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co v Federal Trade Commission, 14 F Supp 2d 757 (17 July 1998) (unsuccessful effort to get court order to ban FTC action against "Joe Camel" cigarette advertising)

Warfield Tobacco, Inc v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 34 F Supp 2d 1050 (ED Ky, 6 Jan 1999) (trade case with unfairness issues)

Hill v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 44 F Supp 2d 837 (WD Ky, 2 April 1999) (issues of fraud and misrepresentation in product liability case by widow)

Philip Morris, Inc v Allen Distributors, Inc, 48 F Supp 2d 844 (SD Ind, 4 May 1999) (manufacturer objection to distributor returning cigarettes made for overseas sale, back to the U.S.)

Aviation West Corporation v Washington State Dep't of Labor and Industries, 138 Wash 2d 413; 980 P2d 701 (8 July 1999) (showing tobacco companies' opposition to employees' legal right to "fresh and pure air" on the job)

In re International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc, Case No. 98-1517 (CA Fed, 20 July 1999) (company asked patent office to register secret ("phantom") marks in tobacco flavorings context; patent office refused)

Lindsey v Tacoma-Pierce County Health Dep't, 195 F3d 1065 (CA 9, 19 Nov 1999) (showing tobaccoists opposition to cigarette advertising ban). SCB: 8 F Supp 2d 1225

U.S. Tobacco Co. (Conn., 28 March 2000) (largest snuff tobacco company must pay $1.05 billion to rival as a federal jury ruled it had violated antitrust laws via aggressive business practices; jury set damages at $350 million, tripled under federal antitrust laws)

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp & Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc v New York State, ___ F Supp 2d ___ (D. Manhattan, J. Loretta A. Preska, 13 Nov 2000) (re N.Y. Interstate cigarette sales law, banning direct sale of cigarettes to New Yorkers via the Internet. N.Y. Attorney General said: "We believe the law is a necessary and critical tool to keep cigarettes out of the hands of minors. We intend to argue that point at the next hearing." But: "What New York could do is impose a $100,000 fine for selling to underage people and levy it on anybody that doesn't take reasonable precautions to verify a buyer's age.")

Beverly J. Rauen v U. S. Tobacco Mfg. Ltd. Partnership, 161 F Supp 2d 899 (ND Ill, 19 Sep 2001) and 2001 WL 1223529 (allegations of handicap discrimination against employee; refusing her a home office as accommodation)

R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co v Star Scientific, Inc, 169 F Supp 2d 452 (MD NC, 3 Oct 2001) (patent infringement case)

Star Scientific, Inc v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, 174 F Supp 2d 388 (D Md, 19 Nov 2001) (patent infringement case)

U. S. v Reynaldo Miravalles, 280 F3d 1328 (CA 11, Fla, 29 Jan 2002) (counterfeit cigar labels case)

Rauen v U. S. Tobacco Mfg. Ltd. Partnership, 319 F3d 891 (CA 7, 10 Feb 2003). SCB: 161 F Supp 2d 899 and 2001 WL 1223529

U.S. v Philip Morris, Inc, 312 F Supp 2d 27 (D DC, 6 April 2004) (granting U.S. DOJ motions pursuant to D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct to disqualify former U.S. DOJ lawyer for 'side-switching' to an 'intervenor')

For Some Definitions Of Terms
Used in or Pertinent to The Cases
Accessory
Accident
Addiction
Balancing the Equities
Consent
Duty of Aiding Victim
Element of Illegality
Fraud
Increased Risk of Death
Informed Consent
Intent
Malice
Motive
Natural and Probable Consequences
The Nonendangerment Duty
Nonsmokers' Rights
Premeditation
Right to Fresh and Pure Air
Smokers' Rights
Taking
Toxic
Transferred Intent
Ultrahazardous Activity
Universal Malice

For More Cases
To Product Liability Cases
To Job Related Cases
To Supreme Court Cases
To Federal Appeals Court Cases
To Cost Recovery Cases By Health Groups/States
To All Cases
To Home Page

Fundamental Principles
"The proof of the pattern or practice [of willingness to commit acts such as the above] supports an inference that any particular decision, during the period in which the policy was in force, was made in pursuit of that policy." Teamsters v U.S., 431 US 324, 362; 97 S Ct 1843, 1868; 52 L Ed 2d 396, 431 (1977).

Violations of criminal law can indeed result in damage to private citizens. Ware-Kramer Tobacco Co v American Tobacco Co, 180 F 160 (ED NC, 1910).

Litigants can show as part of the evidence in his/her own case, the guilt of others linked to the current defendant, in showing a pattern. Locker v American Tobacco Co, 194 F 232 (1912).

Some FTC Criteria For Determining
Certain Unfair Business Practices
Here are factors the FTC "considers in determining whether a practice that is neither in violation of the antitrust laws nor deceptive is nonetheless unfair:

  • '(1) whether the practice, without necessarily having been previously considered unlawful, offends public policy as it has been established by statutes, the common law, or otherwise - whether, in other words, it is within at least the penumbra of some common-law, statutory, or other established concept of unfairness;

  • (2) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous;

  • (3) whether it causes substantial injury to consumers (or competitors or other businessmen).'

    —Statement of Basis and Purpose of Trade Regulation Rule 408, Unfair or Deceptive Advertising and Labeling of Cigarettes in Relation to the Health Hazards of Smoking. 29 Fed. Reg. 8355 (1964)." —FTC v Sperry & Hutchinson Co, 405 US 233; 92 S Ct 898; 31 L Ed 2d 170 ftn 5 (1 March 1972)

  • Email@lpletten

    Copyright © 1999 Leroy J. Pletten