AJPH
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

AJPH First Look, published online ahead of print Mar 29, 2006
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
AJPH.2006.085779v1
96/5/767-a    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Friedman, L. C.
Right arrow Articles by Daynard, R. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Friedman, L. C.
Right arrow Articles by Daynard, R. A.
May 2006, Vol 96, No. 5 | American Journal of Public Health 767
© 2006 American Public Health Association
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2006.085779

LETTER

FRIEDMAN ET AL. RESPOND

Lissy C. Friedman, JD, Christopher N. Banthin, JD and Richard A. Daynard, JD, PhD

Lissy C. Friedman and Christopher N. Banthin are with the Tobacco Control Resource Center, Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, Mass. Richard A. Daynard is with Northeastern University School of Law.

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Lissy C. Friedman, JD, Tobacco Control Resource Center, 102 The Fenway, 117 Cushing Hall, Boston, MA 02115 (e-mail: lissy@tplp.org).

Because this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

Viscusi is incorrect in stating that an interim settlement foreclosed the possibility that he could have been called to the stand in State of Minnesota and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota v Philip Morris, Inc, et al. The settlement came after the defendants’ close of testimony and closing argument; procedurally, it no longer would have been possible for Viscusi to testify at that time.

Furthermore, on April 21, 1998, an attorney for the defendants in the Minnesota case admitted in court that Viscusi’s expert testimony would include surveys that actually were commissioned by the defendants’ lawyers in anticipation . . . [Full Text]






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the American Public Health Association