PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. v. WILLIAMS, personal representative of the ESTATE OF WILLIAMS, DECEASED
No. 07-1216.
Argued December 3, 2008
Decided March 31, 2009
Stephen M. Shapiro argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Andrew L. Frey, Andrew H. Schapiro, Lauren R. Goldman, Kenneth S. Geller, Miguel A. Estrada, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., David J. Debold, Kenneth S. Geller, William F. Gary, and Sharon A. Rudnick.
Robert S. Peck argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were James S. Coon, Raymond F. Thomas, William A. Gaylord, Charles S. Tauman, Maureen Leonard, and Kathryn H. Clarke
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for Associated Oregon Industries et al. by Thomas W. Brown and Joel S. DeVore; for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America by Jonathan D. Hacker, Irving L. Gornstein, Robin S. Conrad, and Amar D. Sarwal; for the National Association of Manufacturers by Francis R. Ortiz, Jan S. Amundson, and Quentin Riegel; for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies by Sheila L. Birnbaum, Douglas W. Dunham, and Ellen P. Quackenbos; for the Pacific Legal Foundation by Timothy Sandefur and Deborah J. La Fetra; and for the Washington Legal Foundation et al. by Arvin Maskin, Konrad Cailteux, Daniel J. Popeo, and Paul D. Kamenar.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for Federal Procedure Scholars by Erwin Chemerinsky; for Public Justice, P. C., et al. by Elizabeth J. Cabraser and Steven E. Fineman; and for the Oregon Trial Lawyers Association by Meagan A Flynn.
Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the State of Oregon et al. by Hardy Myers, Attorney General of Oregon, Peter Shepherd, Deputy Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Janet A Metcalf, Assistant Attorney General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Joseph R. Biden III of Delaware, Douglas F. Gansler of Maryland, Jim Hood of Mississippi, Gary King of New Mexico, Henry D. McMaster of South Carolina, Robert E. Cooper, Jr., of Tennessee, and Bruce A. Salzburg of Wyoming; for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation by Kent S. Scheidegger; and for Retired Oregon Supreme Court Justice Susan M. Leeson et al. by Scott A. Shorr and Robert K. Udziela.
Per Curiam.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
It is so ordered.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine whether the decision of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed was itself liberal or conservative. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. The lower court's decision direction is unspecifiable if the manner in which the Supreme Court took jurisdiction is original or certification; or if the direction of the Supreme Court's decision is unspecifiable and the main issue pertains to private law or interstate relations