Adams M, Bornhauser A, Potschke-Langer M, Grunewald B. [The liability of cigarette producers for the damages to health caused through smoking.] [article in German] Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2005.
Alderman J, Daynard R. Applying lessons from tobacco litigation to obesity lawsuits. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2006;30:82-88.
Balbach E, Smith E, Malone R. How the health belief model helps the tobacco industry: Individuals, choice, and "Information". Tobacco Control. 2006;15(Suppl 4):iv37-43. doi:10.1136/tc.2005.012997
Bero L, Barnes D, Hanauer P, Slade J, Glantz S. Lawyer control of the tobacco industry's external research program: The Brown and Williamson documents. JAMA. 1995;274:241-47.
Browne N, Brown CK, Bouzat F. American Medical Tourism: Regulating a Cure That Can Damage Consumer Health. Loyola Consumer Law Review 2013. 25. Loy. Consumer L. Rev. 319
Cabraser E. Practitioner's View: Apportioning Due Process: Preserving the Right to Affordable Justice. Denver University Law Review 2010;87 Denv. U.L. Rev. 437(2).
Carlini B, Patrick D, Halperin A, Santos V. The tobacco industry's response to the commit trial: An analysis of legacy tobacco documents. Public Health Reports. 2006 Sep-Oct;121(5):501-8.
Chaiton M, Ferrence R, Le Gresley E. Perceptions of industry responsibility and tobacco control policy by US tobacco company executives in trial testimony. Tobacco Control. 2004;15(Suppl 4):iv98-106. doi:10.1136/tc.2004.009647
Ciresi M, Walburn R, Sutton T. Decades of deceit: Document discovery in the Minnesota tobacco litigation. William Mitchell Law Review. 1999;25:477-566.
Crosbie E, Glantz SA. Tobacco industry argues domestic trademark laws and international treaties preclude cigarette health warning labels, despite consistent legal advice that the argument is invalid. Tobacco Control 2012 Nov 24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050569.
Cummings K, Brown A, Douglas C. Consumer acceptable risk: How cigarette companies have responded to accusations that their products are defective. Tobacco Control. 2006;15(Suppl 4):iv84-89. doi:10.1136/tc.2004.009837
Davis R, Douglas C, Beasley J. The tobacco Deposition and Trial Testimony Archive (datta) project: Origins, aims, and methods. Tobacco Control. 2006;15(Suppl 4):iv4-8.
Daynard R, Kelder GJ. The tobacco industry under fire. Trial. 1995;31:20.
Deal C, Doroshow J. The CALA files: The secret campaign by big tobacco and other major industries to take away your rights. The Center for Justice & Democracy. 2000. http://www.centerjd.org/content/cala-files-secret-campaign-big-tobacco-and-other-major-industries-take-away-your-rights
Douglas C, Davis R, Beasley J. Epidemiology of the third wave of tobacco litigation in the united states, 1994-2005. Tobacco Control. 2006;15(Suppl 4):iv9-16. doi:10.1136/tc.2006.016725
Egilman D, Kim J, Biklen M. Proving causation: The use and abuse of medical and scientific evidence inside the courtroom --an epidemiologist's critique of the judicial interpretation of the Daubert ruling. Food Drug Law Journal. 2003;58:223-250.
Flores M, Barnoya J, Mejia R, Alderete E, Perez-Stable E. Litigation in Argentina: Challenging the tobacco industry. Tobacco Control. 2006 Apr;15(2):90-96.
Francis J, Shea A, Samet J. Challenging the epidemiologic evidence on passive smoking: Tactics of tobacco industry expert witnesses. Tobacco Control. 2006;15(Suppl 4):iv68-76. doi:10.1136/tc.2005.014241.
Friedman L. Tobacco industry use of judicial seminars to influence rulings in products liability litigation. Tobacco Control. 2006;15:120-124.
Friedman L, Daynard R, Banthin C. How tobacco-friendly science escapes scrutiny in the courtroom. American Journal of Public Health. 2005;95(Suppl 1):s16-20. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.046227
Goldberg M, Davis R, O'Keefe A. The role of tobacco advertising and promotion: Themes employed in litigation by tobacco industry witnesses. Tobacco Control. 2006;15(Suppl 4):iv54-67. doi:10.1136/tc.2006.017947
Guardino S, Daynard R. Punishing tobacco industry misconduct: The case for exceeding a single digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages. University of Pittsburgh Law Review. 2005;67(1):1-66.
Guardino S, Daynard R. Tobacco industry lawyers as "Disease vectors". Tobacco Control. 2007 Aug;16(4):224-228.
Guardino S, Friedman L, Daynard R. Remedies for document destruction: Tales from the tobacco wars. Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law. 2004;12:1-60.
Hammond D, Chaiton M, Lee A, Collishaw N. Destroyed documents: Uncovering the science that Imperial Tobacco Canada sought to conceal. CMAJ. 2009 Nov 10;181(10):691-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.080566
Hanauer P, Slade J, Barnes D, Bero L, Glantz S. Lawyer control of internal scientific research to avoid products liability lawsuits: The Brown and Williamson documents. JAMA. 1995;274:234-40.
Henningfield J, Rose C, Zeller M. Tobacco industry litigation position on addiction: Continued dependence on past views. Tobacco Control. 2006;15(Suppl 4):iv27-36.
Hernandez R, Kocieniewski D. As New Lawyer, Senator was Active in Tobacco's Defense. March 27 2009. The New York Times. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/nyregion/27gillibrand.html.
Hiilamo H. Tobacco control implication of the first European product liability suit. Tobacco Control. 2005;14:22-30.
Hiilamo H. The impact of strategic funding by the tobacco industry of medical expert witnesses appearing for the defence in the Aho Finnish product liability case. Addiction. 2007;102(6):979-88.
Hurt R. The influence of the Minnesota tobacco trial on the healthcare community and tobacco regulation. William Mitchell Law Review. 1999;25:455-469.
Ibrahim J, Glantz S. Tobacco industry litigation strategies to oppose tobacco control media campaigns. Tobacco Control. 2006;15:50-58.
Kelder G, Daynard R. Tobacco litigation as a public health and cancer control strategy. Journal of the American Medical Women's Association. 1996;51:57-62.
Kessler D. A question of intent. A great American battle with a deadly industry. New York: Public Affairs Press; 2001.
Kyriakoudes L. Historians' testimony on "Common Knowledge" of the risks of tobacco use: A review and analysis of experts testifying on behalf of cigarette manufacturers in civil litigation. Tobacco Control. 2005;15(Suppl 4):iv107-116. doi:10.1136/tc.2005.014076
LaFrance A. Tobacco litigation: Smoke, mirrors and public policy. American Journal of Law & Medicine. 2000;26:187-203.
Mars SG, Ling PM. Meanings & motives: Experts debating tobacco addiction. Am J Public Health. 2008 Aug 13. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2007.114124
Max W, Tsoukalas T. Economics on trial: The use and abuse of economic methods in third party tobacco litigation. Tobacco Control. 2006;15(Suppl 4):iv77-83. doi:10.1136/tc.2004.009555
Milberger S, Davis R, Douglas C, Beasley J, Burns D, Houston T, et al. Tobacco manufacturers' defense against plaintiffs' claims of cancer causation: Throwing mud at the wall and hoping some of it will stick. Tobacco Control. 2006;15(Suppl 4):iv17-26. doi:10.1136/tc.2006.016956
Miura M, Daynard R, Samet J. The role of litigation in tobacco control. Salud Publica de Mexico. 2006 April;48(suppl 1):s121-s136. Available at:http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S0036-36342006000700015&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en
Morewitz S. Sociological Testimony and Evidence in Product Liability
Litigation. In: Morewitz SJ, Goldstein ML, editors. Handbook of Forensic
Sociology and Psychology: Springer New York; 2014. p. 239-255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7178-3_18
Nixon M, Mahmoud L, Glantz S. Tobacco industry litigation to deter local public health ordinances: The industry usually loses in court. Tobacco Control. 2004;13:65-73.
Pottage A. No (More) Logo: Plain Packaging and Communicative Agency. Symposium - Brand New World: Distinguishing Oneself in the Global Flow. UC Davis Law Review 2013 Dec;47(2)
Pringle P. Cornered. Big tobacco at the bar of justice. New York: Henry Holt and Co; 1998.
Proctor R. Tobacco and health. Expert witness report filed on behalf of plaintiffs in: "The United States of America, plaintiff, v. Philip Morris, inc., et al, defendants," Civil action no. 99-cv-02496 (gk) (Federal case). Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law (e-journal). 2004 March;4. http://www.psljournal.com/archives/papers/tobacco.htm
Proctor R. "Everyone knew but no one had proof": Tobacco industry use of medical history expertise in US courts, 1990-2002 Tobacco Control. 2006;15(Suppl 4):iv117-125. doi:10.1136/tc.2004.009928
Rabin R. The third wave of tobacco tort litigation. Chapter 7. In: Rabin Rl, Sugarman Sd, editors. Regulating tobacco. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001.
Ryback D, Phelps D. Smoked. The inside story of the Minnesota tobacco trial. Minneapolis: MSP Books; 1998.
Rychlak R. Cards and Dice in Smoky Rooms: Tobacco Bans and Modern Casinos. Drake Law Review 2009 Winter;57 Drake L. Rev. 467. Available at: http://www.lexisnexis.com/.
Schmertz JJ, Meier M. Evidence (attorney-client privilege). International Law Update. 2004;10:164-166.
Sokol KC. Smoking Abroad and Smokeless at Home: Holding the Tobacco Industry Accountable in a New Era. New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy 2010;13(1)http://www.law.nyu.edu/journals/legislation/issues/Volume13Number1/index.htm.
Unk. Cipollone v. Liggett group. Transcript of proceedings of Antonio Cipollone, individually and as an Executor of Rose D. Cipollone, plaintiff v. Liggett group, inc., a Delaware corporation; Philip Morris, Inc., a Virginia corporation; and Loew's Theatres, inc., a New York Corporation, defendants. In civil action no. 83-2864 (sa). Tobacco Products Liability Reporter. 1988:3.431-3.68.
US Dept of Justice. United States of America, plaintiff v. Philip Morris, et al. defendants. United States' Final Proposed Findings of Fact. United States District Court for the District of Columbia, civil action no. 99-cv-02496 (gk),. 2004. http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/cases/tobacco2
US Dept of Justice. United States of America, plaintiff v. Philip Morris, et al. defendants. Final Opinion. United States District Court for the District of Columbia, civil action no. 99-cv-02496 (gk). 2006. http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/litigation/uspm
US Dept of Justice. United States of America, plaintiff v. Philip Morris, et al. defendants. Final Judgement and Order. United States District Court for the District of Columbia, civil action no. 99-cv-02496 (gk) 2006. http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/litigation/uspm
Voon T, editor. Trade Liberalisation and International Cooperation: A Legal Analysis of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. Edward Elgar; 2013
Wakefield M, McLeod K, Perry C. "Stay away from them until you're old enough to make a decision": Tobacco company testimony about youth smoking initiation. Tobacco Control. 2005;15(Suppl 5):iv44-53. doi:10.1136/tc.2005.011536
Wayne G. Potential reduced exposure products (preps) in industry trial testimony. Tobacco Control. 2004;15(Supl 4):iv90-97. doi:10.1136/tc.2004.009787