Search for: "In re Tobacco Cases II"
Results 21 - 40
of 342
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Sep 2006, 6:00 am
In In re Tobacco II Cases, ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Sept. 5, 2006), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) affirmed an order decertifying UCL and CLRA claims for class treatment. [read post]
30 Oct 2006, 1:49 pm
Last Thursday, October 26, 2006, the Supreme Court issued the following order in In re Tobacco II Cases, no. [read post]
11 Nov 2009, 10:23 am
The Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Eight) generated a good bit of commentary with their construction of In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009). [read post]
20 May 2009, 6:00 am
The San Francisco Chroncile reported yesterday that "Class-action lawsuit over tobacco ads proceeds. [read post]
Supreme Court dismisses final Tobacco II "grant and hold" case: O'Brien v. Camisasca Automotive Mfg.
24 Nov 2009, 5:00 am
The dismissal order reads: In light of the decision in In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298 and Meyer v. [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 1:16 pm
In Re Tobacco Cases II ends not with a bang, but with a whimper.This famous UCL action, which went all the way to the California Supreme Court, ends today (in all likelihood) in the Court of Appeal.There's little doubt that, as the trial court found, that Marlboro Lights were just as dangerous as all other cigarettes, that Philip Morris knew that fact, and that Philip Morris nonetheless advertised these products (falsely) as healthier than the… [read post]
21 Jan 2010, 12:55 pm
The initial appellate decisions in which In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 311 (Tobacco II) was ignored or criticized are beginning to see an equalizing counterbalance from appellate decisions that approvingly apply Tobacco II. [read post]
29 Oct 2009, 5:00 am
AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., 177 Cal.App.4th 1235, 1253 (2009) ("[P]re-Proposition 64 caselaw that describes the kinds of conduct outlawed under the UCL is applicable to post-Proposition 64 cases such as the present case. [read post]
25 Feb 2008, 6:00 am
See In re Tobacco Cases II (Daniels), 41 Cal.4th 1257 (2007). [read post]
8 Mar 2010, 5:00 am
I'm starting to think that the Supreme Court will need to select a case to take up and elaborate on Tobacco II. [read post]
27 Apr 2010, 5:00 am
S180179 (request for depublication also denied); and In re Steroid Hormone Cases, no. [read post]
15 May 2009, 11:18 am
According to the Notice posted on the California Courts website, the California Supreme Court will issue the IN RE TOBACCO II CASES Opinion on Monday, May 18, 2009. [read post]
28 Feb 2010, 11:13 am
In examining In re Tobacco II, the court noted that the tobacco case involved a decades-long campaign of allegedly deceptive and misleading advertising to which nearly everyone was exposed. [read post]
1 Nov 2006, 3:51 pm
Today, the Supreme Court granted review in In re Tobacco II Cases, no. [read post]
8 Sep 2006, 6:23 pm
On September 5, 2006, the Fourth Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal issued its opinion In re Tobacco II Cases. [read post]
30 Apr 2007, 6:00 am
Here are two more amicus briefs in In re Tobacco II Cases, no. [read post]
25 May 2009, 1:22 pm
In re Tobacco Cases II, is the California Supreme Court’s most recent attempt to clarify the requirements for bringing a class action under the of California Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. [read post]
22 Jan 2007, 6:00 am
Thanks to counsel for the petitioners for forwarding a copy of their opening brief on the merits in In re Tobacco II Cases, no. [read post]
11 Nov 2009, 5:00 am
There are doubtless many types of unfair business practices in which the concept of reliance, as discussed here, has no application.In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298, 325 n.17. [read post]
4 Apr 2007, 6:00 am
Many thanks to the reader who forwarded the following briefs in In re Tobacco II Cases, no. [read post]
