April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      

« Ninth Circuit denies en banc rehearing in CAFA "less is more" case: Amalgamated v. Laidlaw | Main | Will the Mervyn's/Branick argument be webcast? »

Thursday, May 25, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345172b069e200d834db89dd53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New UCL "fraudulent" prong decision: People ex rel. DMV v. Cars for Causes:

Comments

Stephen Dolle

I don't believe Proposition 64 should have included stricter standards on causes of action for "fraudulent conduct." It tends to empower more brazen and harmful conduct by those who hold a distinct advantage. The earlier standard worked reasonably well in cases alleging fraud. It would seem the Appellate Court feels similarly.

The comments to this entry are closed.

2014 Supreme Court Calendar


Research


Disclaimer


  • Nothing in this blog constitutes legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney in your jurisdiction. To read this blog's complete disclaimer, click here.


  • The UCL Practitioner
    © 2003-2014
    by Kimberly A. Kralowec
    All rights reserved.


  • Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner




  • Header design by Webmotion
    Photos by Jack Gescheidt
    Powered by TypePad