Search for: "In re Tobacco Cases II"
Results 201 - 220
of 342
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Jan 2010, 7:59 pm
’” In re Tobacco II, at 311. [read post]
21 Jan 2010, 12:55 pm
The initial appellate decisions in which In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 311 (Tobacco II) was ignored or criticized are beginning to see an equalizing counterbalance from appellate decisions that approvingly apply Tobacco II. [read post]
Northern District Certifies Credit Card Deceptive Advertising Class in Greenwood v. Compucredit Corp
21 Jan 2010, 7:20 am
As reasoned by the Court, common issues predominated insfar as Defendants' liability would be adjudicated based on common proof without inquiry into the individual circumstances of each class member:[I]n In re Tobacco II Cases, the California Supreme Court held that only the named plaintiff in a UCL class action need demonstrate injury and causation.Here, Plaintiffs may prove with generalized evidence that Defendants' conduct was "likely… [read post]
14 Jan 2010, 1:49 pm
In In Re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298 (2009), the California Supreme Court resolved that debate. [read post]
12 Jan 2010, 8:39 am
(See Docket No. 85.)While only the named plaintiff in a UCL class action based on fraudulent conduct must demonstrate reliance and causation, In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th at 321, plaintiff's unique susceptibility to a challenge based on her standing to pursue a UCL claim is fatal. [read post]
8 Jan 2010, 5:00 am
In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298, 306 (2009). [read post]
7 Jan 2010, 1:32 pm
The Court was swift in rejecting that basis for decertification: "Recently, the state's high court issued its decision in In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298 (Tobacco II). [read post]
7 Jan 2010, 9:42 am
(Tobacco II, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 320; Fletcher v. [read post]
31 Dec 2009, 9:35 am
And no, we don't want to hear about your uncle/neighbor/dad's college roommate who made millions in the 1980s on whiplash cases. [read post]
22 Dec 2009, 8:43 am
See In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009). [read post]
16 Dec 2009, 7:51 am
(Tobacco II, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 320; Fletcher v. [read post]
16 Dec 2009, 3:52 am
See In re Vioxx Class Cases, No. [read post]
15 Dec 2009, 2:46 pm
(Tobacco II, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 320.) [read post]
15 Dec 2009, 1:04 pm
The plaintiff’s theory alleged that Merck knew about the dangers of Vioxx but engaged in a campaign to hide or explain away those risks, and pursued causes of action under the UCL, the FAL the CLRA, and unjust enrichment.Plaintiffs appeal asserted that the Supreme Court’s decision in In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009), undermined the trial court’s rationale. [read post]
14 Dec 2009, 5:14 am
Hewlett-Packard Co. v Acceleron LLC (Inventive Step) (IP Spotlight) District Court S D California.: Evidence relating to re-examination proceedings excluded from trial: Presidio Components Inc., v. [read post]
12 Dec 2009, 9:58 am
" In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298, 306, 93 Cal. [read post]
10 Dec 2009, 5:00 am
The UCL part of the ruling is largely based on In re Tobacco II, while the CLRA claim was certified based on a Vasquez theory of presumed reliance. [read post]
November 30, 2009 – Environmental Law Settlements, Decisions, Regulatory Actions and Lawsuit Filings
30 Nov 2009, 9:25 am
Click Here Judge sides with environmental groups in coal case. [read post]
28 Nov 2009, 7:35 am
" II. [read post]
25 Nov 2009, 9:02 am
" In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th at 312, 320 ("relief under the UCL is available without individualized proof of deception, reliance and injury"). [read post]
