Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Henley

Supreme Court

Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Henley

543 U.S. 952, 125 S. Ct. 376

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided October 27, 2004·No. No. 04A284·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Application for stay of remittitur, presented to Justice O’Connor, and by her referred to the Court, granted pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari. Should the petition for writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the issuance of the mandate of this Court.

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

Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Application for stay of remittitur, presented to Justice O’Connor, and by her referred to the Court, granted pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari. Should the petition for writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the issuance of the mandate of this Court.

Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Henley, 543 U.S. 952, 125 S. Ct. 376 (2004).

Pincite

543 U.S. 952 (Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Henley) — 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

403 F.3d 631 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)

Grisham v. Philip Morris U.S.A.

403 F.3d 631 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)

Opinion

Related