Search for: "In re Tobacco Cases II"
Results 201 - 220
of 342
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Mar 2020, 6:43 am
Key Findings The Maryland General Assembly is on the verge of adopting a vaguely worded, legally dubious tax on digital advertising in the final days of this session—now paired with new tobacco taxes. [read post]
12 Aug 2008, 12:18 pm
II), ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (S.D.N.Y. [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]
10 Sep 2010, 4:44 am
Again, plaintiffs cited In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298 (2009), to argue that they were not required to allege which representations they specifically saw. [read post]
23 Sep 2015, 4:11 pm
The Ninth Circuit’s laser focus on “liability” and its warning to district courts not to conflate restitution calculations with liability inquiries (which can be traced back to the California Supreme Court In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009)) sets a difficult course for UCL and FAL defendants to navigate. [read post]
10 May 2010, 5:41 am
The fraud prong of their UCL claim was barred for lack of standing, the court concluded, citing In re Tobacco II Cases. [read post]
9 Apr 2010, 12:22 pm
" (In re Tobacco II Cases, supra, at p. 324; Californians for Disability Rights v. [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]
17 Jan 2012, 5:46 am
Plaintiffs pushed hard the argument that under In re Tobacco II, a California UCL class is entitled to a presumption of reliance on misrepresentations in advertising. [read post]
14 Oct 2010, 10:11 am
We have no problem with either in SMW II.That being said, we’re not going to delve too deeply into large portions of SMW II. [read post]
3 Jul 2011, 11:08 pm
TTAB affirms trifusal of NATIONAL QUICK SALE for Real Estate Services: In re National Real Estate Solutions, Inc. [read post]
26 Oct 2015, 7:03 pm
Patent and Trademark Office) If you think you’re being watched, you may be right. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 9:03 am
California Class Certified in Suit Over Dell Price AdvertisingThis posting was written by William Zale, Editor of CCH Advertising Law Guide.In a suit against Dell Inc. under California consumer protection laws, a class was certified consisting of all citizens of the State of California who on or after March 23, 2003 purchased Dell-branded products advertised with a “Slash-Thru” price—a discount from a former sales price—via the Home & Home Office segment of Dell's… [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]
23 Feb 2010, 7:54 am
., at 31-32 (citing In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298, 320 (2009)). [read post]
17 Aug 2011, 10:08 am
Superior Court and In re Tobacco II Cases, inapplicable to the plaintiffs’ claims. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 1:38 pm
In re Neurontin Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, -- F. [read post]
6 Jul 2022, 12:14 pm
“As recognized in In re Tobacco II, and reiterated by numerous Ninth Circuit opinions that followed, as long as named plaintiffs are able to demonstrate reliance on JLI’s marketing that caused them injury, a presumption of reliance arises to on behalf of all class members. [read post]
17 Mar 2020, 1:32 pm
But sometimes they’re deadly. [read post]
25 Jul 2008, 10:51 am
E.g., In re Tobacco Litigation, 624 S.E.2d at 740 (W. [read post]
