Tobacco papers rolled up: university cuts off access to documents after Brown & Williamson protests

Article Abstract:

The University of California at San Francisco removed the public display of Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp memos, indicating that nicotine's addictive qualities were known in the 1960s, after the company sent a demand letter. Technically, the papers are now public property under the California Public Records Act and the company delayed four weeks after learning of the display before claiming the documents were covered under the work product and attorney-client privileges. The University is also protected because it received the papers anonymously and therefore was not involved in the theft.

Other Tobacco Product Manufacturing, Chewing and smoking tobacco, Smoking Tobacco, University of California (San Francisco)

---

Tobacco 'secret' in S.F. library: Brown & Williamson has sued to protect files that are publicly available in a medical school collection

Article Abstract:

Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp is suing over the distribution of company papers detailing that nicotine's addictive qualities were known since the 1960s. However, John W. Barrett, an attorney in the case, believes the company is using the suit to intimidate the media because the papers have been on public display at the University of California at San Francisco Medical Center since summer 1994. Barrett contends that the company was aware of the display and the lack of an injunction against the display indicates that the suit has another motive.

California, University of (San Francisco). School of Medicine

---

'Help wanted' for Mass. tobacco suit; state invites private lawyers to help it recoup health costs due to smoking

Article Abstract:

The Massachusetts state attorney general on Mar 20, 1995, published an ad seeking private lawyers to manage a lawsuit seeking to recover state-paid medical costs from tobacco companies. The move is unusual, but a similar ad appeared several years ago regarding asbestos claims. A leading contender for the work is the Charleston, SC, firm Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, which also worked on the asbestos case. Ten other firms have also responded to the ad; Ness Motley is involved in several similar suits nationwide.

Product liability, Massachusetts, Products liability, Tobacco, states, Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson and Poole

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: U.K. House of Lords rules compound interest applies to ACT compensation claims. Tax treaties and the internal market in the new European scenario
• Abstracts: ECJ to rule on deductibilty of donations to non-resident charities. Belgian dividend deduction system referred to ECJ
• Abstracts: A chilling ethics rule. Attorney sites can avoid violations of ethics rules; a disclaimer can emphasize that a lawyer's Web site doesn't offer advice, solicitation or referrals
• Abstracts: What's up with Coudert Brothers? Partners are coming and going, going and coming, as the firm develops a plan for self preservation
• Abstracts: 'Glory years' are gone: fewer grads get traditional legal jobs

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.