Philip Morris Inc. v. Glendening

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the gross recovery in tobacco litigation not considered state money subject to legislative appropriation until state collected recovery, less contingency fee and litigation expenses, and deposited funds into treasury
• noting that “there are no constitutional or criminal violations directly implicated here”
• finding that Clancy’s lack of the “oversight of an elected State official” was a “significant material distinction ] which permit a finding that the instant contingency fee contract is not violative of due process or public policy”
• distinguishing Clancy on the grounds that Maryland has a “legislative enactment authorizing the ‘special employment’ of outside counsel” while California does not
• upholding retention of contingent-fee counsel to assist with tort litigation against tobacco companies because no constitutional or criminal violations were directly implicated
• upholding retention of contingent-fee counsel to assist with tort litigation against tobacco companies because no constitutional or criminal violations were directly implicated

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).