Search for: "In re Tobacco Cases II"
Results 141 - 160
of 342
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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]
11 Oct 2016, 4:00 am
The analysis assumes that every unnamed class member would have to show that they were misled, which is inconsistent with both Pulaski and In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009), which this opinion does not cite (it cites only the more recent Tobacco II opinion on remand, discussed here). [read post]
10 May 2012, 2:58 am
” Slip op at 9 (quoting In re Tobacco II, 46 Cal. 4th 326-27). [read post]
10 Aug 2007, 1:23 am
See, e.g., In re "Agent Orange" Prod. [read post]
24 Mar 2017, 8:44 am
In the coordinated California state court talc cases, Judge Maren E. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 5:00 am
In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298, 325 n.17 (2009). [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]
12 Dec 2009, 9:58 am
" In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298, 306, 93 Cal. [read post]
12 Jun 2009, 2:39 pm
More than four years later, the California Supreme Court has announced exactly where those limits lie.The court's long-awaited decision in In re Tobacco II Cases, S147345, interprets two fundamental, voter-approved amendments to the UCL. [read post]
17 Jan 2012, 9:38 pm
"In re Country Music Association, Inc., 100 USPQ2d 1824 (TTAB 2011) [precedential]. [read post]
7 Mar 2024, 5:28 am
Cargill, in which the Court will decide whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives properly re-interpreted the definition of “machinegun” under 26 U.S.C. [read post]
6 Jan 2011, 3:31 pm
In re Baycol Cases I and II: Did the “death knell doctrine” require plaintiff to immediately appeal the sustaining of a demurer as to class claims when the ruling resolved both individual and class claims, or did the one final judgment rule apply and require a single appeal from the subsequent entry of final judgment on all claims? [read post]
4 Mar 2009, 6:54 am
In the case of In re Tobacco II Cases, no. [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]
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]
13 Oct 2006, 8:38 am
*Re: An American Third Party.From: Dean Lawrence R. [read post]
10 Jul 2012, 7:00 pm
Golan points to tobacco cases as the earliest forays into the use of epidemiologic evidence to prove health claims in court: “I found only four toxic tort cases in the 1960s that involved epidemiological evidence – two tobacco and two vaccine cases. [read post]
5 Oct 2010, 5:00 am
In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298, 312 (2009) (footnote omitted) (emphasis added). [read post]
22 Jan 2007, 9:53 am
II. [read post]
11 Apr 2017, 12:53 pm
” (In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 315.) [read post]
