Grisham v. Philip Morris U.S.A.

Ninth Circuit

Grisham v. Philip Morris U.S.A.

482 F.3d 1131, 2007 WL 979842

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided April 3, 2007·No. Nos. 03-55780, 03-56018·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

[1132]*1132ORDER

PER CURIAM.

In light of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Grisham v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 40 Cal.4th 623, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 735, 151 P.3d 1151 (2007), and in light of the Joint Report of the Parties Re: Decision of the California Supreme Court on the Certified Questions, the judgments of the district court are VACATED and we REMAND to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the California Supreme Court. In light of the Joint Report of the Parties Re: Decision of the California Supreme Court on the Certified Questions, we also VACATE our previous order of March 16, 2007 calling for supplemental briefing from the parties in Cannata v. Philip Morris, 03-56018.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[1132]*1132ORDER

PER CURIAM.

In light of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Grisham v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 40 Cal.4th 623, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 735, 151 P.3d 1151 (2007), and in light of the Joint Report of the Parties Re: Decision of the California Supreme Court on the Certified Questions, the judgments of the district court are VACATED and we REMAND to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the California Supreme Court. In light of the Joint Report of the Parties Re: Decision of the California Supreme Court on the Certified Questions, we also VACATE our previous order of March 16, 2007 calling for supplemental briefing from the parties in Cannata v. Philip Morris, 03-56018.

Grisham v. Philip Morris U.S.A., 482 F.3d 1131, 2007 WL 979842 (9th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

482 F.3d 1131 (Grisham v. Philip Morris U.S.A.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Leslie J. Grisham v. Philip Morris U.S.A., a Corporation Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company Corp., Individually and as Successor to the American Tobacco Company and Its Predecessor in Interest, British American Tobacco Industries, Plc, Maria Cannata v. Philip Morris Usa, Inc., AKA Philip Morris Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation

482 F.3d 1131 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)

Opinion

Related