PTI, 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.

• finding that because of the direct actions by the State Attorneys General, approval by state courts, and implementation of Qualifying Statutes by state legislatures, the Multistate Settlement Agreement was the result of direct state action, rendering Midcal inapplicable
• finding that because of the direct actions by the State Attorneys General, approval by state courts, and implementation of Qualifying Statutes by state legislatures, the Multi-state Settlement Agreement was the result of direct state action, rendering Midcal inapplicable
• distinguishing Allied Tube because the trade restraint imposed against the plaintiff in that case had been imposed by private persons, not by public officials
• finding immunity for the MSA itself and for “the various Qualifying States, versions of the Model Act, trademark litigation, and anticompetitive conduct of the private defendants”
• “the private defendants are clearly immune for their activities involved with the negotiation, execution, and attempts to implement the MSA, the Qualifying Statute, and the Model Act”
• “Far from an objectively baseless attempt to harm its competitors through the abuse of governmental process, the M.S.A. reflects a genuine, ultimately successful attempt to settle extensive current and potential litigation with the states.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).