Search for: "In Re CAL"
Results 3201 - 3220
of 5,815
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jul 2009, 12:06 am
Baloney. 160 Cal. [read post]
29 Jun 2017, 4:00 am
., In re Baycol Cases I & II, 51 Cal.4th 751 (2011). [read post]
10 Jul 2012, 2:19 pm
(Cal. [read post]
11 Jun 2014, 9:54 am
Cal. [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 training materials and… [read post]
17 Jan 2019, 8:47 am
Cal. [read post]
29 Nov 2024, 8:50 am
Cal. [read post]
3 Feb 2007, 2:47 pm
The Court then remanded the opinion to the trial court for the limited purpose of re-crafting the permanent injunction in keeping with the decision and the City's adult ordinance. [read post]
14 Aug 2008, 10:04 am
Cal., No. 2:06-ml-01737). [read post]
31 May 2017, 6:54 am
Marvin. 18 Cal.3d 660 (1976). [read post]
RAND SIMBERG ON the “Lunar Yellow Peril:” I think that, when it comes to militarily useful lunar ba…
10 Jan 2012, 3:56 pm
But both the Chinese and NASA are far from being able to affordably get humans to the moon, and until they dramatically change their modi operandi (and we get a new Congress), they’re going to remain so. [read post]
24 Dec 2011, 5:31 am
(See In re Cipro Cases I & II (2004) 121 Cal. [read post]
23 Jan 2012, 5:00 am
Cal. 2007) 11 U.S.C.S. [read post]
5 Feb 2008, 6:00 am
In In re Tobacco Cases II, 41 Cal.4th 1257 (2007), for example, the California Supreme Court held that the FCLAA preempted a UCL claim to the extent that it "seeks to impose on defendant tobacco companies a duty not to advertise in a way that could encourage minors to smoke," citing Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. [read post]
11 Oct 2016, 4:00 am
The analysis assumes that every unnamed class member would have to show that they were misled, which is inconsistent with both Pulaski and In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009), which this opinion does not cite (it cites only the more recent Tobacco II opinion on remand, discussed here). [read post]
19 Nov 2009, 8:04 pm
Cal. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 11:01 am
The Supreme Court explains today in In re Baycol Cases I and II: "The right to appeal in California is generally governed by the 'one final judgment' rule, under which most interlocutory orders are not appealable. [read post]
23 Mar 2009, 1:10 pm
— In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008). [read post]
11 Jul 2019, 12:05 pm
Cal. 2015). [read post]
11 May 2012, 4:30 am
Informative article by our Barbara Libove in New York Nonprofit Press - http://bit.ly/Kmwlpu Patrick Sternal: Episcopal Church is rightful owner of properties, court rules http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/la | Consistent with 2009 Cal Sup Ct church property case For more interesting tweets, follow me and Emily on Twitter. [read post]
