Search for: "In re Tobacco Cases II"
Results 81 - 100
of 342
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Nov 2009, 7:20 am
The California Supreme Court recently answered this question in In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298, 93 Cal. [read post]
11 Jul 2008, 1:00 pm
Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition of related issues in In re Tobacco II Cases, S147345, and Meyer v. [read post]
29 Jun 2009, 5:42 pm
In a post here last May, I talked about the California Supreme Court's decision in In Re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, suggesting that in that decision, the Supremes might have enlarged the field of potential litigation under California's notorious UCL, and I also gave a little history of how the UCL grew out of control, became a playground for uninjured bounty-hunters and eventually ran into a voter… [read post]
25 Apr 2011, 3:07 pm
In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th at 327. [read post]
16 Apr 2010, 1:46 pm
Calcagnie received the awards in the category of Appellate Law, for their work in connection with the California Supreme Court ruling In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 311, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 559, 207 P.3d 20. [read post]
19 May 2009, 7:00 am
In re Tobacco II Cases, No. 147345 (Cal. [read post]
21 Apr 2010, 4:14 pm
See Slip op. at 12-13 (discussing In re Tobacco II). [read post]
10 Dec 2009, 5:00 am
The UCL part of the ruling is largely based on In re Tobacco II, while the CLRA claim was certified based on a Vasquez theory of presumed reliance. [read post]
16 Dec 2009, 7:51 am
(Tobacco II, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 320; Fletcher v. [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 5:00 am
Vioxx is one of the nine Court of Appeal cases to date substantively interpreting Tobacco II. [read post]
New federal UCL "fraudulent" prong decision: In re Neurotonin Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation
12 Nov 2010, 5:00 am
This case shows just how powerful the UCL can be. [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]
8 Feb 2010, 1:02 pm
DIRECTV, Inc., 178 Cal.App.4th 966 (2009) and In re Vioxx Class Cases, 180 Cal.App.4th 116 (2009). [read post]
2 Oct 2011, 10:38 am
Reynolds Tobacco Co., 611 F. 3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2010), that the Engle findings were res judicata only in the sense of establishing certain facts, not as establishing certain elements of a cause of action. [read post]
2 Oct 2011, 10:38 am
Reynolds Tobacco Co., 611 F. 3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2010), that the Engle findings were res judicata only in the sense of establishing certain facts, not as establishing certain elements of a cause of action. [read post]
15 Dec 2009, 1:04 pm
The plaintiff’s theory alleged that Merck knew about the dangers of Vioxx but engaged in a campaign to hide or explain away those risks, and pursued causes of action under the UCL, the FAL the CLRA, and unjust enrichment.Plaintiffs appeal asserted that the Supreme Court’s decision in In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009), undermined the trial court’s rationale. [read post]
19 May 2009, 11:06 am
Download PDF file of In re Tobacco II Cases [read post]
8 Feb 2010, 12:46 pm
In Steroid Hormone Product Cases (January 21, 2010), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Four) reversed an order denying class certification and made some statements that seemed to be an implied rebuke of Cohen's treatment of In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298 (Tobacco II). [read post]
28 Dec 2010, 3:30 am
Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 08-16158, 2010 WL 2866923 (11th Cir. [read post]
4 Feb 2009, 6:27 am
UPDATE: After more than two years, on February 3, 2009, the California Supreme Court finally set argument in an important UCL case, In re Tobacco II for Tuesday, March 3, 2009, at 9:00 a.m., in San Francisco. [read post]
