Guinto v. Philip Morris Inc.
This text of Guinto v. Philip Morris Inc. (Guinto v. Philip Morris Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
No. 00-1289
MARY C. GUINTO, MOTHER OF MICHAEL J. GUINTO, DANIEL T. GUINTO AND JULIE A. GUINTO; RAYMOND GUINTO, FATHER OF MICHAEL J. GUINTO, DANIEL T. GUINTO AND JULIE A. GUINTO,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
PHILIP MORRIS, INC.,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge, Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge, and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
Mary C. Guinto and Raymond Guinto on brief pro se. Brenda R. Sharton, Robert N. Driscoll, Douglas S. Brooks and Goodwin, Procter & Hoar on brief for appellee.
September 13, 2000 Per Curiam. We have reviewed the parties' briefs
and the record on appeal. There was neither error of law
nor abuse of discretion in the district court's order
denying the appellants' motion, filed pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b), and motion to amend.
We deny the appellee's motion for sanctions seeking
an order preventing appellants from further court action
based upon the same underlying facts. Such a request is
more properly addressed to the district court in the event
of any future filing.
Construing appellants' "motion for argumentative
statement" as a request for oral argument, it is denied.
The order of the district court, dated February 3,
2000, is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Guinto v. Philip Morris Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guinto-v-philip-morris-inc-ca1-2000.