52 Cited authorities

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
509 U.S. 579 (1993) Cited 26,211 times 224 Legal Analyses
Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"
Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife
504 U.S. 555 (1992) Cited 27,719 times 138 Legal Analyses
Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
564 U.S. 338 (2011) Cited 6,613 times 504 Legal Analyses
Holding in Rule 23 context that “[w]ithout some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims for relief will produce a common answer”
Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 1,113 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs' commonality must connect to their claim for class relief
In re Tobacco II Cases
46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) Cited 1,202 times 35 Legal Analyses
Holding class representatives had standing to challenge common marketing of cigarettes despite differences in the advertisements or statements on which class members relied
Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co.
265 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 1,415 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that remand for defective diversity allegations was unreviewable even though the removing defendant "could potentially have cured its defective allegations regarding citizenship by amending its notice of removal"
Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co.
666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) Cited 966 times 51 Legal Analyses
Holding that false advertising "class must be defined in such a way as to include only members who were exposed to advertising that is alleged to be materially misleading"
Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp.
976 F.2d 497 (9th Cir. 1992) Cited 1,610 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the defendants' statements emphasizing superior quality were material because "a reasonable jury could conclude that [the company] publicly released optimistic statements ... when it knew [its product] could not be built reliably"
Hangarter v. Provident Life and Acc. Ins. Co.
373 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 917 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding a district court did not abuse its discretion in qualifying an insurance expert who testified on similar issues in twelve previous cases and had never been found unqualified
Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co.
472 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. 2006) Cited 820 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the typicality requirement was not satisfied where the plaintiff's proposed class "include[d] people who knew fountain Diet Coke contained saccharin and bought it anyway" when the plaintiff "claim[ed] she was deceived and injured"
Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses
Fed. R. Evid. 702 Cited 26,561 times 251 Legal Analyses
Adopting the Daubert standard
Rule 403 - Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons
Fed. R. Evid. 403 Cited 22,449 times 81 Legal Analyses
Adopting a similar standard, but requiring the probative value to be "substantially outweighed" by these risks
Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 Cited 17,790 times 315 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting unlawful business practices
Rule 901 - Authenticating or Identifying Evidence
Fed. R. Evid. 901 Cited 5,138 times 47 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]estimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be" is sufficient authentication
Rule 602 - Need for Personal Knowledge
Fed. R. Evid. 602 Cited 3,492 times 13 Legal Analyses
Stating that " witness may testify only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter"
Section 17500 - Untrue or misleading advertising
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 Cited 2,652 times 64 Legal Analyses
Requiring action that originated in California to effect consumers in another state
Section 1780 - Action by consumer; remedies; senior citizens or disabled persons; costs and attorney's fees
Cal. Civ. Code § 1780 Cited 646 times 3 Legal Analyses
Granting standing to consumers who have suffered damage "as a result of" a violation
Section 1783 - Limitation of action
Cal. Civ. Code § 1783 Cited 122 times
Setting a three-year statute of limitations for actions under the CLRA

Ries et al v. Hornell Brewing Company, inc. et al

52 Cited authorities

Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"

Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"

Holding in Rule 23 context that “[w]ithout some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims for relief will produce a common answer”

Holding that plaintiffs' commonality must connect to their claim for class relief

Holding class representatives had standing to challenge common marketing of cigarettes despite differences in the advertisements or statements on which class members relied

Holding that remand for defective diversity allegations was unreviewable even though the removing defendant "could potentially have cured its defective allegations regarding citizenship by amending its notice of removal"

Holding that false advertising "class must be defined in such a way as to include only members who were exposed to advertising that is alleged to be materially misleading"

Holding that the defendants' statements emphasizing superior quality were material because "a reasonable jury could conclude that [the company] publicly released optimistic statements ... when it knew [its product] could not be built reliably"

Holding a district court did not abuse its discretion in qualifying an insurance expert who testified on similar issues in twelve previous cases and had never been found unqualified

Holding that the typicality requirement was not satisfied where the plaintiff's proposed class "include[d] people who knew fountain Diet Coke contained saccharin and bought it anyway" when the plaintiff "claim[ed] she was deceived and injured"

Adopting the Daubert standard

Adopting a similar standard, but requiring the probative value to be "substantially outweighed" by these risks

Prohibiting unlawful business practices

Holding that "[t]estimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be" is sufficient authentication

Stating that " witness may testify only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter"

Requiring action that originated in California to effect consumers in another state

Granting standing to consumers who have suffered damage "as a result of" a violation

Setting a three-year statute of limitations for actions under the CLRA