Business, 27.03.2020 04:31 kkjones1536
A group of smokers (Respondents) brought suit against a tobacco producer Altria, alleging that they were misled by the Altria and other cigarette producers’ (Petitioners) ads and labels on its cigarettes touting "light" and "low-tar." By covering filter ventilation holes with their lips or fingers, taking larger or more frequent puffs, and holding the smoke in their lungs for a longer period of time, smokers of "light" cigarettes unknowingly inhale as much tar and nicotine as do smokers of regular cigarettes. "Light" cigarettes are in fact more harmful because the increased ventilation that results from their unique design features produces smoke that is more mutagenic per milligram of tar than the smoke of regular cigarettes. The smokers argued that the tobacco companies violated the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act (MUTPA) by fraudulently concealing that information and by affirmatively representing, through the use of "light' and "lowered tar and nicotine" descriptors, that their cigarettes would pose fewer health risks. The District Court entered summary judgment in favor of the tobacco companies on the ground that the state-law claim is preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. The Court of Appeals reversed that judgment, and the U. S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review its holding that the Labeling Act neither expressly nor impliedly preempts state law.
What should the court decide and why?
Answers: 3
Other questions on the subject: Business
Business, 21.06.2019 22:10, jdiel14
Fess receives wages totaling $74,500 and has net earnings from self-employment amounting to $71,300. in determining her taxable self-employment income for the oasdi tax, how much of her net self-employment earnings must fess count? a. $74,500 b. $71,300 c. $53,900 d. $127,200 e. none of the above.
Answers: 3
Business, 22.06.2019 02:00, johnkings140
Alandowner and his neighbor purchased adjoining undeveloped lots. after both built homes on their respective lots, the landowner suggested to the neighbor that a common driveway be built where the two lots joined. the neighbor agreed. the landowner and the neighbor split the cost of constructing the driveway and entered into a written agreement to equally share the costs of its upkeep and maintenance. the agreement was recorded in the county recorder's office. two years later, the neighbor built a new driveway located entirely on his lot. the common driveway, which the landowner continued to use but which the neighbor no longer used, began to deteriorate. the landowner asked the neighbor for money to maintain the common driveway, but the neighbor refused to contribute. three years later, the neighbor conveyed his lot to a friend. the friend entered into possession and used only the driveway built by the neighbor. by this time, the common driveway had deteriorated badly and contained numerous potholes. the landowner asked the friend to pay half of what it would take to repair the common driveway. the friend refused. the landowner repaired the driveway and sued the friend for 50% of the cost of repairs. will the landowner prevail?
Answers: 2
Business, 22.06.2019 06:00, bobbyxii6033
Suppose that a monopolistically competitive restaurant is currently serving 260 meals per day (the output where mr
Answers: 2
You know the right answer?
A group of smokers (Respondents) brought suit against a tobacco producer Altria, alleging that they...
Questions in other subjects:
Chemistry, 18.02.2020 05:29
