Search for: "In re Tobacco Cases II"
Results 181 - 200
of 342
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jan 2011, 2:47 pm
The Court offered this interesting discussion concerning reliance: In California, “a presumption, or at least an inference, of reliance arises wherever there is a showing that a misrepresentation was material,” In re Tobacco II Cases, 466 Cal.4th 298, 397 (2009). [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]
21 Apr 2010, 8:05 am
” (In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 318 [].) [read post]
22 Nov 2010, 6:59 am
Under Tobacco II, actual reliance can be proved by showing that a misrepresentation or nondisclosure was an immediate cause of the plaintiff’s injury-producing conduct. [read post]
7 Jan 2010, 9:42 am
(Tobacco II, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 320; Fletcher v. [read post]
25 Nov 2019, 7:27 am
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 12:20 am
Even if they did, In re Tobacco II merely provides that to establish UCL standing, reliance need not be proved through exposure to particular advertisements; the case does not stand for, nor could it, a general relaxation of the pleading requirements under Rule 9(b). [read post]
27 Jul 2015, 4:00 am
” (In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 312.) [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 3:47 pm
In Part II, I’ll tell you about the case, but first I want to lay some ground work to provide context. [read post]
22 Jul 2013, 11:07 pm
’ ” (In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 311.) [read post]
1 Feb 2011, 10:54 am
Although it may seem strange that this should even be an issue, many plaintiffs have argued that certain UCL statutory language, along with dicta in the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in In re Tobacco II Cases, allows restitution (the only monetary relief available under these statutes) without proof that a plaintiff was actually injured due to a UCL or FAL violation. [read post]
15 Sep 2010, 10:48 am
We shift to first gear to discuss the case of Hamilton v. [read post]
19 Oct 2020, 5:48 pm
Co. of the Sw., 953 F.3d 624, 630 (9th Cir. 2020), In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298, 328, 207 P.3d 20, 28 (2009). [read post]
17 Aug 2011, 10:08 am
Superior Court and In re Tobacco II Cases, inapplicable to the plaintiffs’ claims. [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]
31 Aug 2011, 3:34 pm
Citing the California Supreme Court's decision in In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298 (2009), the court opined that the plaintiffs did not need to identify with specificity the misrepresentations they relied on where they alleged exposure to a long-term advertising campaign. [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]
19 Jan 2021, 1:17 pm
[B]y allegedly misleading consumers and re-directing them away from non-partner restaurants to partner restaurants, DoorDash allegedly gains at non-partner restaurants’ expense. [read post]
13 Dec 2018, 9:30 pm
Supreme Court agreed to hear the case Kisor v. [read post]
3 Apr 2007, 5:25 am
Scholars disagree over whether case-by-case or wholesale analysis is preferable. [read post]
