Search for: "In re Tobacco Cases II"
Results 101 - 120
of 342
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 May 2012, 5:00 am
Reynolds Tobacco Co., 713 A.2d 381 (N.H.1998), a tobacco case where the plaintiff sought to impose absolute liability. [read post]
25 Apr 2012, 3:12 am
Expounding on the California Supreme Court’s landmark “Tobacco II” decision, In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298, (2009), the unanimous Medrazo panel explained its reversal of the trial court as follows: As the Supreme Court explained in Tobacco II, the language in the UCL limiting standing to plaintiffs who lost money “as a result of the unfair competition” (Bus. [read post]
23 Apr 2012, 5:36 am
Jessica Litman: goal is to improve results in real cases/prevent bad cases from being filed. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 6:15 am
Part II: Bans on advertisers’ own speech The court—now Judge Clay is back to speaking for the unanimous panel again—turned to restrictions on speech about “modified risk” tobacco products. [read post]
27 Feb 2012, 3:09 am
The Board concluded that "(i) persons who speak Spanish at home, and (ii) persons who do not speak Spanish at home but who know Spanish, are a substantial portion of the U.S. population. [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]
30 Jan 2012, 8:05 pm
Honda’s product brochures and TV commercials fell short of the “extensive and long-term [fraudulent] advertising campaign” at issue in In re Tobacco II Cases (Cal. [read post]
17 Jan 2012, 9:38 pm
"In re Country Music Association, Inc., 100 USPQ2d 1824 (TTAB 2011) [precedential]. [read post]
17 Jan 2012, 5:46 am
Plaintiffs pushed hard the argument that under In re Tobacco II, a California UCL class is entitled to a presumption of reliance on misrepresentations in advertising. [read post]
3 Dec 2011, 9:56 am
Marshall does not supply rule of decision in present proceeding -- Bankruptcy Court may hear FCCPA action, but it cannot enter final judgment without parties' consent, as FCCPA action is non-core proceeding -- Discussion of effect of defendant's admission of jurisdiction -- Even if court were to relieve defendant of its consent to jurisdiction and treat proceeding as non-core proceeding without both parties' consent, court would still hear proceeding -- Exercise of permissive… [read post]
16 Nov 2011, 5:40 am
In re Ferrero Litigation, 2011 WL 5438979 (S.D. [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 5:00 am
“Labels Matter”: Emerging Trends in UCL, FAL, and CLRA False Advertising Litigation This panel will focus on the impact of recent California Supreme Court and appellate court decisions – including Kwikset, In re Tobacco II, Daugherty v. [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]
31 Aug 2011, 3:34 pm
Citing the California Supreme Court's decision in In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298 (2009), the court opined that the plaintiffs did not need to identify with specificity the misrepresentations they relied on where they alleged exposure to a long-term advertising campaign. [read post]
26 Aug 2011, 11:36 am
Fernandez explained that the California Supreme Court’s In re Tobacco II requires only that the named plaintiff in a UCL action demonstrate actual injury and that Ninth Circuit precedent holds the same, as do class actions generally, stating: “At least one named plaintiff must satisfy the actual injury component of standing in order to seek relief on behalf of himself or the class. [read post]
26 Aug 2011, 11:36 am
Fernandez explained that the California Supreme Court’s In re Tobacco II requires only that the named plaintiff in a UCL action demonstrate actual injury and that Ninth Circuit precedent holds the same, as do class actions generally, stating: “At least one named plaintiff must satisfy the actual injury component of standing in order to seek relief on behalf of himself or the class. [read post]
23 Aug 2011, 4:21 pm
But maybe they're not. [read post]
17 Aug 2011, 10:08 am
Superior Court and In re Tobacco II Cases, inapplicable to the plaintiffs’ claims. [read post]
17 Aug 2011, 10:08 am
Superior Court and In re Tobacco II Cases, inapplicable to the plaintiffs’ claims. [read post]
