Search for: "In re Tobacco Cases II"
Results 81 - 100
of 342
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jan 2014, 9:38 am
(In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 318, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 559, 207 P.3d 20.) [read post]
22 Jan 2014, 7:42 am
Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, 2013 Comp. [read post]
20 Nov 2013, 6:26 pm
The judgment of the Commercial Court of Madrid can of course be appealed – and it is highly likely this has been the case. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 5:00 am
McAdams resulted in one of the nine published post-Tobacco II appellate opinions, in which the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order denying class certification. [read post]
14 Oct 2013, 6:08 am
Now silicosis, you’re a dirty robber and a thief.Awww silicosis, dirty robber and a thief.Robbed me of my right to live and all you brought poor me was grief. [read post]
13 Aug 2013, 5:00 am
In re iPhone 4S Consumer Litigation, 2013 WL 3829653, (N.D. [read post]
22 Jul 2013, 11:07 pm
’ ” (In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 311.) [read post]
22 Jul 2013, 8:01 am
In re Tobacco II didn’t change the result, since that case involved a long-term ad campaign; plaintiffs are still required to allege facts showing that the ads at issue were an immediate cause of the purchase decision. [read post]
25 Apr 2013, 5:36 am
Though they aren’t required to plead exposure with an unrealistic degree of specificity under In re Tobacco II, that case dealt with an extensive and longterm ad campaign, whereas the campaign here began in 2012. [read post]
22 Apr 2013, 6:37 am
[ii] Appellant’s Opening Brief, Chance v. [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 5:00 am
A final interesting aspect of this opinion is that it rejected as irrelevant, in an "unlawful" prong case, decisions involving the UCL's "fraudulent" prong, which interpreted "as a result of" to mean "reliance on": EAS’s citations to cases pertaining to the requirement to allege reliance in order to show causation in cases based on fraud (see, e.g., In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298; Pfizer Inc. v. [read post]
6 Sep 2012, 5:00 am
Belly Up to the Bar (Association) Part II is Debra Vey Voda-Ha [read post]
9 Aug 2012, 5:00 am
This is the thirteenth significant Court of Appeal opinion construtiong In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009). [read post]
18 Jul 2012, 5:00 am
Superior Court, 246 P.3d 877, 888 (Cal. 2011) (quoting In re Tobacco II Cases, 207 P.3d 20, 26 (Cal. 2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted), and that “the misrepresentation was an immediate cause of [their] injury-producing conduct,” In re Tobacco II Cases, 207 P.3d at 39. [read post]
10 Jul 2012, 7:00 pm
Golan points to tobacco cases as the earliest forays into the use of epidemiologic evidence to prove health claims in court: “I found only four toxic tort cases in the 1960s that involved epidemiological evidence – two tobacco and two vaccine cases. [read post]
5 Jul 2012, 7:14 am
Given Tobacco II’s approval of a claim based on exposure to a long-term ad campaign, “some degree of variation or imprecision with respect to specific statements is allowed. [read post]
26 Jun 2012, 5:00 am
” In re Tobacco II,46 Cal.4th at 327. [read post]
10 Jun 2012, 1:09 pm
See, e.g., In re Welding Fume Prods. [read post]
14 May 2012, 2:27 am
In case you need reminding ... [read post]
10 May 2012, 2:58 am
” Slip op at 9 (quoting In re Tobacco II, 46 Cal. 4th 326-27). [read post]
