Witherspoon 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.

• asserting that “[ajttitudes and knowledge about cigarettes have changed immensely since [comment i] was written,” and that the comment “appears to be on very shaky ground currently”
• holding that plaintiff failed to plead DCCPPA claim with particularity
• noting that even though Rule 9(b) applied to claims under a District of Columbia deceptive trade practices statute, plaintiff was not required to allege intent since intent was not an element of the cause of action under the statute
• noting that even though Rule 9(b) applied to claims under a District of Columbia deceptive trade practices statute, plaintiff was not required to allege intent since intent was not an element of the cause of action under the statute
• applying Rule 9(b) to a claim under a District of Columbia deceptive trade practices statute that the Court found “analogous” to a fraud claim
• applying District of Columbia law and concluding that “[wjhether a cause of action or a part of damages requested, medical monitoring requires that the plaintiff have a present injury’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).