Search for: "In re Tobacco Cases II"
Results 221 - 240
of 342
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
Supreme Court dismisses final Tobacco II "grant and hold" case: O'Brien v. Camisasca Automotive Mfg.
24 Nov 2009, 5:00 am
The dismissal order reads: In light of the decision in In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298 and Meyer v. [read post]
22 Nov 2009, 12:52 am
Before In re Tobacco II, class certification in the Abbott case appeared destined for failure, Robinson said. [read post]
21 Nov 2009, 5:00 am
I tried searching for "In re Tobacco II Cases," and it gave me the original Court of Appeal opinion from 2006, not the Supreme Court's opinion. [read post]
California Federal Court Allows Nationwide UCL Class Action in Pay-Per-Click Suit Against CitySearch
20 Nov 2009, 5:57 am
On the UCL claim, the court found that the predominance requirement was met for the "fraudulent" prong of the UCL because, it reasoned, there was no need to adjudicate individual circumstances; rather, applying In re Tobacco II, 46 Cal. 4th 298, 320 (2009), the court concluded that the case would be adjudicated under a "reasonable consumer standard" that focuses on whether members of the public were likely to be deceived. [read post]
19 Nov 2009, 10:51 am
We aren't the first to note the latest class action denial in the prescription medical product liability field, In re Panacryl Sutures Products Liability Cases, No. 5:08-MD-1959-BO, slip op. [read post]
18 Nov 2009, 12:29 am
A plaintiffs attorney credited the certification to the state Supreme Court's May 18 decision in In re Tobacco II Cases, which said class actions alleging consumer fraud can go forward even if not all the class members have suffered injuries caused by deceptive advertising. [read post]
11 Nov 2009, 10:23 am
The Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Eight) generated a good bit of commentary with their construction of In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009). [read post]
11 Nov 2009, 6:17 am
" Tobacco II, 46 Cal. 4th at 327 (emphasis added). . . . [read post]
11 Nov 2009, 5:00 am
There are doubtless many types of unfair business practices in which the concept of reliance, as discussed here, has no application.In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298, 325 n.17. [read post]
11 Nov 2009, 2:58 am
Interestingly, the court of appeals distinguished the state's supreme court's recent decision in In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009). [read post]
10 Nov 2009, 7:20 am
The California Supreme Court recently answered this question in In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298, 93 Cal. [read post]
5 Nov 2009, 5:33 pm
He went on to discuss his work in the Katrina cases (In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches Consolidated Litigation) where plaintiffs’ attorneys waived their fees but were allowed to ask for an enhancement of costs. [read post]
3 Nov 2009, 4:01 am
The Court also explained that the California Supreme Court opinion in In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009), did not compel a different result. [read post]
2 Nov 2009, 2:35 pm
Among other things, the court of appeal held that the California Supreme Court's recent decision in In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009) (“Tobacco II”) did not mandate reversal of the trial court's decision. [read post]
29 Oct 2009, 11:48 am
Cohen is the most recent California appellate court Opinion to comment on the treatment of UCL claims by In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009), the prior two decisions being Kaldenbach v. [read post]
29 Oct 2009, 5:00 am
AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., 177 Cal.App.4th 1235, 1253 (2009) ("[P]re-Proposition 64 caselaw that describes the kinds of conduct outlawed under the UCL is applicable to post-Proposition 64 cases such as the present case. [read post]
28 Oct 2009, 5:00 am
The September 17, 2009 issue of Mealey's Class Action Litigation Reporter has an article, "The Scope of Class Restitution in the Wake of In Re Tobacco II Cases," by Matt Bailey of Khorrami Pollard & Abir in Los Angeles. [read post]
26 Oct 2009, 3:47 pm
In re Tobacco II Cases hasn't been out long, but its significance is already hard to deny. [read post]
26 Oct 2009, 9:19 am
Neither In re Tobacco II Cases, supra, 46 Cal.4th 298, nor Massachusetts Mutual, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th 1282, compel a different result.See Kaldenbach, at 21.As reasoned by the Court, this justification supported the trial court's denial of certification, as "there was no evidence linking those common tools to what was actually said or demonstrated in any individual sales transaction[,]" but rather, "[t]he record demonstrates Mutual's… [read post]
26 Oct 2009, 1:37 am
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at p. 459.)In re Baycol Cases I & II, 2009 Cal. [read post]
