CONTACT ME

SUBSCRIBE


  • Enter your email address:

October 2020

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 31

« "Supremes Hand Win to Workers with Google Age Bias Ruling" | Main | BASF program today: Strategies for Growing Your Practice »

Monday, August 09, 2010

Comments

rb

Re Lu, I would say Justice Chin is 0/2 on UCL cases. This and Cel-Tech very poorly reasoned. He analyzes the legislative history of the statute in issue, but not the legislative and judicial history of the UCL itself, which clearly was intended to cover this kind of situation. Clearly, the acts alleged are unlawful, as is conversion and both should properly tether this to an unlawfulness prong case.

The comments to this entry are closed.

2020 Supreme Court Calendar


Research


Disclaimer


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


  • The UCL Practitioner
    © 2003-2020
    by Kimberly A. Kralowec
    All rights reserved.



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


  • StatCounter