8 Cited authorities

Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel
471 U.S. 626 (1985) Cited 608 times 54 Legal Analyses
Holding that attorney advertisement promising "if there is no recovery, no legal fees are owed by our clients" was potentially misleading because "members of the public are often unaware of the technical meanings of such terms as 'fees' and 'costs' — terms that, in ordinary usage, might well be virtually interchangeable"
United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc.
566 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2009) Cited 207 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the verb "include" is non-limiting where the "most obvious way" to limit a definition would be to write it the way Congress wrote other limited definitions nearby
United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
449 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006) Cited 82 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that “[e]ach cigarette manufacturing company gains a small amount (less than 10%) of smokers through ‘switching’ or changing brands. Only about 9% of adult smokers switch among [the major tobacco manufacturer's] brands.”
Novartis Corp. v. F.T.C
223 F.3d 783 (D.C. Cir. 2000) Cited 41 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding that materiality is presumed for "claims that significantly involve health, safety, or other areas with which the reasonable consumer would be concerned, including a claim that concerns the purpose, safety, efficacy, ... performance, ... or a finding by another agency regarding the product."
U.S. v. Philip Morris, Inc.
273 F. Supp. 2d 3 (D.D.C. 2002) Cited 34 times
Rejecting Defendants' arguments for a jury trial
Warner-Lambert Co. v. F.T.C.
562 F.2d 749 (D.C. Cir. 1977) Cited 47 times
Determining that “advertising which fails to rebut the prior claims ... [would] inevitably build upon those claims; continued advertising continues the deception, albeit implicitly rather than explicitly”
U.S. v. Natl. Soc. of Professional Engineers
555 F.2d 978 (D.C. Cir. 1977) Cited 13 times
No. 76-1023. Argued January 18, 1977. Decided March 14, 1977. Lee Loevinger, Washington, D.C., with whom Martin Michaelson, James H. Sneed and Janet L. McDavid, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellant. Robert B. Nicholson, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., with whom Susan J. Atkinson, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellee. Laurence K. Gustafson, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for appellee. Appeal from the
Section 1964 - Civil remedies
18 U.S.C. § 1964 Cited 6,087 times 41 Legal Analyses
Granting civil remedies for RICO violation

USA v. Philip Morris USA, et al

8 Cited authorities

Holding that the verb "include" is non-limiting where the "most obvious way" to limit a definition would be to write it the way Congress wrote other limited definitions nearby

Finding that “[e]ach cigarette manufacturing company gains a small amount (less than 10%) of smokers through ‘switching’ or changing brands. Only about 9% of adult smokers switch among [the major tobacco manufacturer's] brands.”

Rejecting Defendants' arguments for a jury trial

Determining that “advertising which fails to rebut the prior claims ... [would] inevitably build upon those claims; continued advertising continues the deception, albeit implicitly rather than explicitly”

Granting civil remedies for RICO violation