Search for: "In re Tobacco Cases II"
Results 121 - 140
of 342
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Aug 2011, 11:31 pm
Part 1 & II: deja vu? [read post]
9 Aug 2011, 5:00 am
App. 2008), and “immediate” causation, In re Tobacco II Cases, 207 P.3d 20, 40 (Cal. 2009). [read post]
3 Jul 2011, 11:08 pm
TTAB affirms trifusal of NATIONAL QUICK SALE for Real Estate Services: In re National Real Estate Solutions, Inc. [read post]
29 Jun 2011, 8:57 pm
In stepping to the plate, there’s no call to spit tobacco, scratch where you shouldn't, and kick up dirt. [read post]
10 Jun 2011, 12:14 pm
Indeed, the Tobacco II court relied heavily on federal cases interpreting the requirements of Rule 23. [read post]
25 May 2011, 11:46 pm
Reynolds Tobacco Co., 537 F.3d 1357, 1365 (Fed. [read post]
4 May 2011, 4:42 am
Why would that matter for the merits of particular cases? [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 3:18 pm
Obviously, if we’re calling California conservative and Idaho liberal, then the issues associated with comment k don’t fit well into the usual legal cubby holes.Idaho, then – holding our noses all the way. [read post]
25 Apr 2011, 3:07 pm
In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th at 327. [read post]
22 Apr 2011, 8:01 am
The court explained that, under the standard articulated by the California Supreme Court in In re Tobacco II, reliance can be proven by a showing that the advertising played a “substantial part” in the purchase, which plaintiffs testimony did here. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 3:47 pm
In Part II, I’ll tell you about the case, but first I want to lay some ground work to provide context. [read post]
26 Mar 2011, 6:59 pm
Relying on Tobacco II and In re Steroid Hormone Product Cases, the Court noted that “relief under the UCL is available without individualized proof of deception, reliance and injury. [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 5:00 am
In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298, 325 n.17 (2009) (emphasis added). [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 9:12 am
Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court then issued its decision in In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, which addressed standing issues in Unfair Competition cases after passage of Prop. 64. [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 5:00 am
Tobacco II established that Proposition 64 changes this for named plaintiffs, but not for absent class members. [read post]
10 Feb 2011, 4:30 am
Reynolds Tobacco Company in an appeals court in Florida in the case of R.J. [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 1:23 pm
Citing their earlier decision in In re Tobacco II Cases, the Kwikset Court reiterated that a UCL plaintiff relying on the fraud prong of the statute "must demonstrate actual reliance on the allegedly deceptive or misleading statements. [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 1:23 pm
Citing their earlier decision in In re Tobacco II Cases, the Kwikset Court reiterated that a UCL plaintiff relying on the fraud prong of the statute "must demonstrate actual reliance on the allegedly deceptive or misleading statements. [read post]
1 Feb 2011, 10:54 am
Although it may seem strange that this should even be an issue, many plaintiffs have argued that certain UCL statutory language, along with dicta in the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in In re Tobacco II Cases, allows restitution (the only monetary relief available under these statutes) without proof that a plaintiff was actually injured due to a UCL or FAL violation. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 9:03 am
California Class Certified in Suit Over Dell Price AdvertisingThis posting was written by William Zale, Editor of CCH Advertising Law Guide.In a suit against Dell Inc. under California consumer protection laws, a class was certified consisting of all citizens of the State of California who on or after March 23, 2003 purchased Dell-branded products advertised with a “Slash-Thru” price—a discount from a former sales price—via the Home & Home Office segment of Dell's… [read post]
