WARNER-LAMBERT CO., LLC, ET AL. v. KENT ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
No. 06-1498.
Argued February 25, 2008
Decided March 3, 2008
Carter G. Phillips argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Daniel E. Troy, Rebecca K. Wood, Eamon P. Joyce, Quin M. Sorenson, David Klingsberg, and Steven Glickstein.
Daryl Joseffer argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Clement, Acting Assistant Attorney General Bucholtz, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, Douglas N. Letter, Daniel Meron, Gerald F. Masoudi, and Eric M. Blumberg.
Allison M. Zieve argued the cause for respondents. With her on the brief were David R. Parker, Brian Wolf man, Scott L. Nelson, Theodore Goldberg, and David Bennet Rodes.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America by Kenneth S. Getter, David M. Gossett, Robin S. Conrad, and Amar D. Sarwal; for the Generic Pharmaceutical Association by Jay R Lefkowitz; for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America by Bert W. Rein; and for the Product Liability Advisory Council by Robert N. Weiner.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of Kansas et al. by Paul J. Morrison, Attorney General of Kansas, Stephen R. McAllister, Solicitor General, and Jared S. Maag, Deputy Solicitor General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Talis J. Colberg of Alaska, Terry Goddard of Arizona, Bill McCollum of Florida, Lawrence G. Wasden of Idaho, Lisa Madigan of Illinois, Tom Miller of Iowa, Jack Conway of Kentucky, Michael A. Cox of Michigan, Lori Swanson of Minnesota, Jim Hood of Mississippi, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon of Missouri, Mike McGrath of Montana, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Kelly A. Ayotte of New Hampshire, Anne Milgram of New Jersey, Gary K. King of New Mexico, Andrew M. Cuomo of New York, Wayne Stenehjem of North Dakota, Marc Dann of Ohio, W. A Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma, Hardy Myers of Oregon, Henry McMaster of South Carolina, Lawrence E. Long of South Dakota, Mark L. Shurtleff of Utah, William H. Sorrell of Vermont, Robert F. McDonnell of Virginia, Robert M. Mc-Kenna of Washington, and Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., of West Virginia; for AARP by David C. Vladeck and Bruce Vignery; for the American Association for Justice by Francine A Hochberg and Kathleen Flynn Peterson; for the National Conference of State Legislatures et al. by Richard Ruda and Steven H. Goldblatt; and for Public Justice, P. C., by Leslie A. Brueckner, David J. Arkush, and Arthur H. Bryant.
Eric G. Lasker, Daniel J. Popeo, and Richard A. Samp filed a brief for the Washington Legal Foundation as amicus curiae.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.