Amsterdam Tobacco Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• suggesting that courts pose this counterfactual question to determine whether a separate enterprise has been alleged
• holding that “the ‘but for’ cause” of a tobacco manufacturer’s lost sales, in a case similar to this one, “was, among other things, the smuggling activity and the decision by New York consumers not to purchase cigarettes from Plaintiffs” (emphasis added)
• holding that “the ‘but for’ cause” of a tobacco manufacturer’s lost sales, in a case similar to this one, “was, among other things, the smuggling activity and the decision by New York consumers not to purchase cigarettes from Plaintiffs” (emphasis added)
• “Where, as here, the primary purpose of an alleged racketeering enterprise is to avoid paying taxes or otherwise defraud the government, indirectly injured parties do not have standing to bring RICO claims.”
• “The (direct) cause of Plaintiffs’ lost profits was not any activity of Philip Morris’. Rather, the ‘but for’ cause of Plaintiffs alleged loss was, among other things, the smuggling activity and the decision by New York consumers not to purchase cigarettes from Plaintiffs.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).