15 U.S.C. § 1337
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases, 1971–2009 · leading case: Tafas v. Doll, 559 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Tafas v. Doll, 559 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “In this case, it is unnecessary to decide whether deference would be due to the agency's interpretation of its own authority, as we conclude, even without deference, that the agency has authority to issue regulations of the sort issued in this case, subject to their consistency…”
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Walter Jacobson & Cbs, Inc., 713 F.2d 262 (7th Cir. 1983). “The Senate Report on the bill asked the FTC to include in the biennial reports on cigarette labeling and advertising that are required by section 8(a) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1337 (a), “an analysis of public opinion polls and other relevant information indicating the extent to…”
Pub. Citizen v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 869 F.2d 1541 (D.C. Cir. 1989). “the following explanation for its decision to exempt utilitarian objects: [Although the Commission understands that certain types of promotional activities, like the distribution of utilitarian objects, are intended to increase brand awareness, advertising and other promotional…”
United States v. Philip Morris Inc., 263 F. Supp. 2d 72 (D.D.C. 2003). “The statute requires the warnings that appear on every package of cigarettes sold in the United States, 15 U.”
Prado Alvarez v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 313 F. Supp. 2d 61 (D.P.R. 2004). “” ( 15 U.S.C. § 1337 ). 27. Cigarettes have significant and inherent health risks for a number of serious diseases, and may contribute to causing those diseases in some individuals.”
Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 593 F. Supp. 1146 (D.N.J. 1984). “It correspondingly limited the obligations imposed and the remedies available under the Act to those consonant with this purpose: a particular label was required, 15 U.”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Carter, 464 F. Supp. 633 (D.D.C. 1979). “Section 8(b), 15 U.S.C. § 1337 (b), provides in pertinent part that: The Federal Trade Commission shall transmit a report to Congress not later than January 1, 1971, and annually thereafter, concerning (A) the effectiveness of cigarette labelling, (B) current practices and…”
Henley v. Philip Morris Inc., 5 Cal. Rptr. 3d 42 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). “Code, § 308 [penal fine of $200 for first offense up to $1,000 for third offense]) or to violations of the 1969 Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 1337 [$10,000 per violation]).”
Henley v. Philip Morris Inc., 9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 29 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004). “Code, § 308 [penal fine of $200 for first offense up to $1,000 for third offense]) or to violations of the 1969 Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 1337 [$10,000 per violation]).”
Terry K. Jones v. Thomas J. Vilsack, 272 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 2001). “The FCLAA charges the FTC with a duty to report to Congress on the “cur *1036 rent practices and methods of cigarette advertising and promotion,” 15 U.S.C. § 1337 (b)(1), and the Surgeon General’s Reports historically have provided the political and scientific impetus to enact…”
Larus & Brother Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 447 F.2d 876 (4th Cir. 1971). “The Senate Report states in part: “Following are significant conclusions from the HEW reports, ‘The Health Consequences of Smoking, 1967, 1968, and 1969: Smoking and Cardio-Vascu-lar Disease’: 1967— ‘ * * evidence not only confirms the fact that cigarette smokers have increased…”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Carter, 636 F.2d 781 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “In the Cigarette Labelling and Advertising Act Congress clearly imposed a “duty” upon the Commission, and thus the holding of Morton Salt that the Commission’s investigatory authority may be used “for any purpose within the duties of the Commission” is equally applicable.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.