Search for: "No. 97-1282" Results 1 - 20 of 30
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
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]
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 training materials and… [read post]
20 Feb 2009, 9:25 am
Superior Court, 97 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1292, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 190 (Cal.App.2002). [read post]
9 Mar 2009, 6:00 am
Superior Court (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1295 [delayed discovery rule "probably" applies to unfair competition claims based on alleged nondisclosure of material information regarding vanishing premium policies].) [read post]
27 Oct 2009, 5:00 am
Superior Court, 97 Cal.App.4th 1282 (2002), on the basis that in those cases, "there was no issue about defendants' uniform business practices giving rise to the UCL claim. [read post]
14 Mar 2008, 6:00 am
Superior Court, 97 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1292 (2002) (whether the concealed information "should have been disclosed given the characteristics" of the transaction); see also Day v. [read post]
25 Oct 2007, 6:00 am
Superior Court (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1292 [CRLA claims do not require individualized proof of causation of injury from a deceptive practice].) [read post]
20 Feb 2007, 6:00 am
Superior Court (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1295 [discovery rule "probably" applies]), and we do not address it. [read post]