The State of New York v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
Case Number:
17-1993
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Companies
- American Academy of Pediatrics
- American Trucking Associations Inc.
- Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
- Public Health Law Center
- Truth Initiative
- United Parcel Service Inc.
- Washington Legal Foundation
Government Agencies
Sectors & Industries:
-
November 22, 2019
$80M Rests On 2nd Circ. Fixing Split Cig Tax Ruling, UPS Says
UPS has urged the Second Circuit to revisit its hefty penalty against the company for delivering untaxed cigarettes from Native American reservations into New York, saying almost $80 million hinges on the interpretation of a single word that left the circuit panel keenly divided.
-
November 07, 2019
2nd Circ. Cleaves UPS Untaxed Cigarette Judgment By $149M
A $247 million judgment against UPS for delivering untaxed tobacco from Native American vendors into New York was too harsh, the Second Circuit ruled Thursday, slashing the penalties by $159 million while tacking on $9.4 million in taxes.
-
March 02, 2018
Groups, States Back NY In $247M UPS Cigarette Penalty Row
A host of states and anti-tobacco groups have thrown their support behind the state and city of New York's bid Wednesday for the Second Circuit to affirm a $247 million penalty against United Parcel Service Inc. for helping to move untaxed cigarettes from tribal lands.
-
February 23, 2018
NY Asks 2nd Circ. To Affirm $247M UPS Cigarette Penalty
The city and state of New York asked the Second Circuit on Wednesday to affirm a $247 million penalty against United Parcel Service Inc. for helping to move untaxed cigarettes from tribal lands, saying UPS' request to drastically reduce its penalty was based on meritless claims of immunity.
-
October 16, 2017
Chamber Urges 2nd Circ. To Trim UPS Penalty In Tobacco Suit
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others on Friday urged the Second Circuit to reverse an order from a federal judge in New York slapping UPS with $237 million in penalties for helping move untaxed cigarettes from tribal lands, arguing that the amount is unconstitutionally excessive.