Search for: "In re Tobacco Cases II"
Results 101 - 120
of 342
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Aug 2009, 6:00 am
The California Supreme Court recently answered this question in In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009). [read post]
18 Dec 2006, 6:00 am
Query: The Court of Appeal's opinion in In re Tobacco II Cases includes the "In re" prefix, but the Court of Appeal's opinion in Farm Raised Salmon Cases does not. [read post]
22 Jul 2009, 1:29 pm
Don't miss Will Stern on August 5, 2009, 12:00-1:30, when the Bar Association of San Francisco will present "Section 17200 Update After In re Tobacco II Cases. [read post]
1 Feb 2010, 3:59 am
’” In re Tobacco II, at 311. [read post]
15 Dec 2009, 2:46 pm
(Tobacco II, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 320.) [read post]
16 Nov 2011, 5:40 am
In re Ferrero Litigation, 2011 WL 5438979 (S.D. [read post]
5 Feb 2008, 6:00 am
In In re Tobacco Cases II, 41 Cal.4th 1257 (2007), for example, the California Supreme Court held that the FCLAA preempted a UCL claim to the extent that it "seeks to impose on defendant tobacco companies a duty not to advertise in a way that could encourage minors to smoke," citing Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. [read post]
22 May 2009, 6:00 am
Notably, the opinion cites Tobacco: The deterrent effect of a restitution remedy under the unfair competition law was most recently articulated in In re Tobacco II Cases (May 18, 2009, S147345) ___ Cal.4th ___ [2009 Cal. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 3:05 pm
(citing Tobacco II, 46 Cal.4th at 326, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 559, 207 P.3d 20). [read post]
24 Feb 2010, 10:21 am
Then, the Supreme Court granted review and deferred the matter (grant and hold) in light of In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298 (Tobacco II), pending on the Supreme Court's docket at the time. [read post]
30 Apr 2010, 5:00 am
Enson "UCL Class Certification after In re Tobacco II Cases" by Neal Potischman, Mark Kokanovich and Julie Epley "Kearns v. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 5:00 am
LEXIS 60554 at *27-*28, *37 (citing In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298, 324 (2009)). [read post]
26 Feb 2010, 10:47 am
The California Supreme Court granted review and held pending its decision in In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298 (Tobacco II), which concerned standing issues arising from the 2004 amendment to the UCL by Proposition 64. [read post]
13 Aug 2007, 6:00 am
Another case argued on June 6, 2007, In re Tobacco Cases II, has already been decided. [read post]
20 Oct 2009, 9:14 am
" As I discussed in a prior post, Cohen is poorly reasoned, as the California Supreme Court rejected this very line of analysis in In Re Tobacco II Cases. [read post]
22 Dec 2009, 8:43 am
See In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009). [read post]
29 Oct 2009, 11:48 am
Cohen is the most recent California appellate court Opinion to comment on the treatment of UCL claims by In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009), the prior two decisions being Kaldenbach v. [read post]
18 May 2009, 7:28 am
” In re Tobacco II Cases, slip Op. at p. 2 (Cal. [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 10:08 pm
" See In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298, 320 (2009). [read post]
11 Nov 2009, 2:58 am
Interestingly, the court of appeals distinguished the state's supreme court's recent decision in In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009). [read post]
