S & M BRANDS, INC. v. Summers

How courts have described this case

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

• holding neither Tennessee’s Allocable Share Amendment or the MSA was a hybrid restraint
• stating that Tennessee’s Qualifying Statute did not violate the Equal Protection clause even if nonsettling manufacturers are treated differently because the distinctions between the nonset-tling and settling manufacturers were rational and related to a legitimate purpose
• stating that Tennessee's Qualifying Statute did not violate the Equal Protection clause even if nonsettling manufacturers are treated differently because the distinctions between the nonsettling and settling manufacturers were rational and related to a legitimate purpose
• upholding Tennessee’s escrow statute and related tobacco laws against challenges under the Sherman Act, Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses
• “Even if the MSA could be challenged as a per se Sherman Act violation, however, such a challenge would be barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).