Search for: "In re Tobacco Cases II"
Results 61 - 80
of 342
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Feb 2017, 9:41 am
Almost every federal court hears several times as many administrative law cases as patent cases. [read post]
26 Oct 2016, 10:45 am
In part II we will focus on developments in wage and hour law, leave laws, industry-specific regulations, and California’s recent legislation affecting choice-of-law in employment contracts. [read post]
13 Oct 2016, 9:33 am
Id. citing In re Tobacco Cases II, 192 Cal. [read post]
11 Oct 2016, 4:00 am
The analysis assumes that every unnamed class member would have to show that they were misled, which is inconsistent with both Pulaski and In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009), which this opinion does not cite (it cites only the more recent Tobacco II opinion on remand, discussed here). [read post]
12 Aug 2016, 5:59 am
California – The Coliseum Case is the Latest Embarrassment for D.A. [read post]
27 Jun 2016, 4:41 pm
** A Return to the Limits of In Re Tobacco II? [read post]
19 May 2016, 5:00 pm
This limit differs from the limitations in the Final HIPAA Regulations but, in some cases, may actually provide a larger overall incentive. [read post]
8 Feb 2016, 5:38 am
In re Tobacco II Cases, 207 P.3d 20 (Cal. 2009) (“An injunction would not serve the purpose of prevention of future harm if only those who had already been injured by the practice were entitled to that relief. [read post]
13 Nov 2015, 8:30 pm
In re Tobacco Cases II is a recent California Court of Appeal decision with dire consequences for consumer class actions that seek refunds under the UCL, if it is not overturned. [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]
22 Oct 2015, 4:00 am
I'm sure everyone recalls the Supreme Court's landmark opinion in this case from 2009, In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009) (discussed here). [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]
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]
22 Sep 2015, 4:00 am
Co., 594 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2010); In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009)). [read post]
10 Aug 2015, 2:11 pm
Case style: Neese v. [read post]
10 Aug 2015, 2:11 pm
Case style: Neese v. [read post]
28 Jul 2015, 11:52 am
” (In re Silicone Gel Breast Implant Prod. [read post]
27 Jul 2015, 4:00 am
” (In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 312.) [read post]
11 Jun 2015, 4:46 am
Ticketmaster Corp., 655 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2011), and In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009), that is indeed the result you get. [read post]
1 May 2014, 9:57 am
Under In re Tobacco II, this was a close case, since the “exception” for pleading reliance on specific misrepresentations in the context of a long-term ad campaigns is “narrow. [read post]
