Search for: "In re Tobacco Cases II"
Results 161 - 180
of 342
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Oct 2009, 12:57 am
., at 25-26.While the plaintiff asserted that his UCL claim warranted certification under the principles espoused in In re Tobacco II, the District Court disagreed. [read post]
11 Jun 2015, 4:46 am
Ticketmaster Corp., 655 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2011), and In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009), that is indeed the result you get. [read post]
7 Jan 2008, 12:33 pm
Only if the state Supreme Court were to defer these other cases could it more quickly address the backlog of capital appeals -- and even then, new death penalty appeals and new legal issues requiring review would continue to pour into the system.One of the 80 fully-briefed, non-capital cases pending at the Supreme Court is In re Tobacco II Cases, no. [read post]
11 Nov 2009, 6:17 am
" Tobacco II, 46 Cal. 4th at 327 (emphasis added). . . . [read post]
24 May 2010, 11:26 am
After World War II, epidemiology developed the assessment of case-control and cohort studies to permit reliable detection and quantification of causal associations between diet, medications, social habits, and occupational or environmental exposures and various chronic diseases. [read post]
12 Jul 2010, 10:13 am
” (In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 319.) [read post]
22 Aug 2007, 6:00 am
(dated 08/17/07) All of the letters argue that, at a minimum, the Supreme Court should issue a "grant and hold" order pending resolution of In re Tobacco Cases II and Pfizer. [read post]
31 May 2007, 6:00 am
The Supreme Court is expected to decide this precise question in In re Tobacco Cases II. [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]
18 Aug 2009, 6:00 am
In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298, 326 (2009). [read post]
20 May 2009, 10:21 am
In the 4-3 decision of In Re: Tobacco II Cases, the Supreme Court overturned the trial and appellate courts, both of which permitted the defendant tobacco companies to decertify a class initially certified prior to passage of Prop. 64. [read post]
21 May 2010, 6:32 am
The trial court had ruled on the plaintiff's motion for class certification some six months before the California Supremes' decision in In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298 (2009). [read post]
10 Mar 2010, 3:46 am
Following the decertification order, however, the California Supreme Court ordered the appeals court to revisit the issue in light of its intervening decision in In re: Tobacco II, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009). [read post]
2 Jul 2017, 12:20 pm
” (In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 319.) [read post]
1 Feb 2010, 10:15 am
Five others are evidence in pending criminal cases, and 65 have serial numbers cleared by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for people to claim. [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]
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]
9 Feb 2018, 4:00 am
Because these claims do not impose any duty on employers that is subject to federal preemption, they do not come within the principles articulated in Tobacco Cases II. [read post]
9 Feb 2018, 4:00 am
Because these claims do not impose any duty on employers that is subject to federal preemption, they do not come within the principles articulated in Tobacco Cases II. [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 3:16 pm
.'" (In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 305 (Tobacco II), citing Bus. [read post]
