Search for: "In re Tobacco Cases II"
Results 221 - 240
of 342
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Feb 2007, 6:02 am
See In re Simon II, 407 F.3d 125, 139 (2d Cir. 2005); Beck v. [read post]
7 Oct 2022, 5:01 am
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation and expanded in West Virginia v. [read post]
25 Nov 2019, 11:17 pm
Claim 1 of the main request (patent as granted) reads as follows:"A package of tobacco articles, comprising: [....]VII. [read post]
20 Feb 2012, 5:22 am
The case concerns the approach that the court ought to take to the summary applications under The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction when Article 13(b) is engaged; and the application of the guidance given in Re E [2011] UKSC 27. [read post]
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]
1 Oct 2010, 9:26 am
We don't mind being criticized; we're lawyers. [read post]
7 Feb 2007, 9:48 pm
American Tobacco Co., 161 F.3d 127 (3d Cir. 1998). [read post]
9 Oct 2008, 4:28 am
On aggregation, we're essentially traditionalists. [read post]
13 Apr 2020, 7:03 am
“Classical population-based services include hygiene and sanitation, portable water, clean air, vector abatement, injury prevention, health education, and tobacco and alcohol control [and gun control?]. [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]
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]
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]
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]
14 Jul 2010, 10:49 am
" (In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 319.) [read post]
22 Jan 2014, 7:42 am
Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, 2013 Comp. [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 8:07 am
We're talking about the Restatement (Third) of Torts, Products Liability §2, to be precise. [read post]
22 Apr 2011, 8:01 am
The court explained that, under the standard articulated by the California Supreme Court in In re Tobacco II, reliance can be proven by a showing that the advertising played a “substantial part” in the purchase, which plaintiffs testimony did here. [read post]
13 Jul 2010, 11:07 am
.' (In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 319.) [read post]
13 Oct 2016, 9:33 am
Id. citing In re Tobacco Cases II, 192 Cal. [read post]
20 Sep 2020, 7:59 pm
However, the re-certification hearing also had another twist. [read post]
