FORUM
« Global warming lawsuits, cont'd |
Eliot Spitzer and excessive compensation »
October 26, 2006
Four views on Philip Morris v. Williams
I have written a piece on the Philip Morris v. Williams case for the Business and Media Institute. For other views, see Anthony Sebok (Brooklyn Law), Alan Morrison (Public Citizen), and Adam Cohen (New York Times). Morrison argues that the federal courts have no role in reviewing state-court decisions, which makes one wonder what his position is on habeas corpus. Cohen's op-ed misstates what happened in Andrade, which was a case of collateral (and thus limited) review, rather than a direct appeal, like Williams, where a civil defendant does not even have the option of collateral review.
Earlier: Oct. 12; May 30; Feb. 2.
Update: The American Constitution Society press briefing on Philip Morris v. Williams (in which I participated with Peter Rubin, Neil Vidmar, and Bill Schultz) is now online.
Posted by Ted Frank at 11:37 AM
| TrackBack (0)
|
categories:
Miscellaneous
|
|