Search for: "In re Tobacco Cases II" Results 121 - 140 of 342
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Feb 2010, 7:16 am by Matt C. Bailey
There are numerous great articles, including one authored by myself entitled In re Tobacco II Cases almost one year later: A boon for California consumers, or a bust? [read post]
5 Oct 2009, 1:09 am
Neither In re Tobacco II Cases, supra, 46 Cal.4th 298, nor Massachusetts Mutual, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th 1282, compel a different result.Kaldenbach v. [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 7:47 am by Steven G. Pearl
Following In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, the Court held that an “inference of common reliance” may be applied to a CLRA class that alleges a material misrepresentation consisting of a failure to disclose a particular fact. [read post]
12 Oct 2009, 1:12 am
LEXIS 92777, 16-17.Under principles espoused in In Re Tobacco II Cases, the defendant's conduct is the only relevant issue bearing on UCL liability (previously discussed here and here). [read post]
22 Nov 2009, 12:52 am
Before In re Tobacco II, class certification in the Abbott case appeared destined for failure, Robinson said. [read post]
5 Jul 2017, 4:00 am by Kimberly A. Kralowec
"  Id. at 1055, 1056 (citing In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298, 326 (2009); Chapman v. [read post]
25 Apr 2012, 3:12 am by rhall@initiativelegal.com
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]
11 Jan 2008, 6:00 am
Given the apparent overlap in issues, it would not be surprising to see a "grant and hold" order in this case pending resolution of In re Tobacco II Cases. [read post]
23 Sep 2018, 4:03 pm by Schachtman
Consider the spectacle of having anti-tobacco activists and tobacco plaintiffs’ expert witnesses assert that the American Law Institute had an ethical problem because Institute members included some tobacco defense lawyers.1 Somehow these authors overlooked their own positional and financial conflicts, as well as the obvious fact that the Institute’s members included some tobacco plaintiffs’ lawyers. [read post]
3 Mar 2009, 5:56 am
This morning, March 3, 2009, the California Supreme Court heard argument in In re Tobacco II Cases, a case that will shape how parties litigate California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) claims. [read post]
8 Feb 2016, 5:38 am by Rebecca Tushnet
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]
22 Dec 2010, 10:18 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Reynolds Tobacco Co., 537 F.3d 1357, 1365 (Fed. [read post]
16 Nov 2010, 5:45 am by Russell Jackson
Plaintiff relied heavily on In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, which held that absent class members subjected to a pervasive advertising campaign do not have to demonstrate reliance to obtain relief in a UCL class action. [read post]
22 Sep 2015, 4:00 am by Kimberly A. Kralowec
Co., 594 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2010); In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009)). [read post]
26 Oct 2009, 9:19 am
Neither In re Tobacco II Cases, supra, 46 Cal.4th 298, nor Massachusetts Mutual, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th 1282, compel a different result.See Kaldenbach, at 21.As reasoned by the Court, this justification supported the trial court's denial of certification, as "there was no evidence linking those common tools to what was actually said or demonstrated in any individual sales transaction[,]" but rather, "[t]he record demonstrates Mutual's… [read post]