§Why CasetextPricing

LOEFFLER v. TARGET CORPORATION

Respondent’s Supplemental Brief

9 Cited authorities

  1. Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.

    20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 2,420 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for an act to be "unfair," it must "threaten" a violation of law or "violate the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law"

  2. Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co.

    23 Cal.4th 429 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 532 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing and remanding for reconsideration because the court was not "prepared to say that class treatment necessarily is proper," and "upon a fresh look [the trial court] may discern valid reasons for denying" the certification motion

  3. Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc.

    17 Cal.4th 553 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 288 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that “the fact a UCL action is based upon, or may even promote the achievement of, policy ends underlying section 308 or the STAKE Act, does not, of itself, transform the action into one for the ‘enforcement’ of section 308”

  4. Blue Chip Stamps v. Superior Court

    18 Cal.3d 381 (Cal. 1976)   Cited 62 times
    In Blue Chip Stamps, supra, 18 Cal.3d 381, we held that a trial court abused its discretion in ordering certification of a class comprised of persons who sought recovery of excess tax reimbursements that they paid to the defendant trading stamp company while redeeming stamps for merchandise.

  5. Budrow v. Dave & Buster’s of California, Inc.

    171 Cal.App.4th 875 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 12 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a UCL unlawful claim fails as a matter of law if no underlying unlawful conduct

  6. Loeffler v. Target Corp.

    173 Cal.App.4th 1229 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 5 times

    No. B199287. May 12, 2009. REVIEW GRANTED September 9, 2009. Appeal from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC360004, Michael L. Stern, Judge. Lange Koncius, Joseph J. M. Lange and Jeffrey A. Koncius for Plaintiffs and Appellants. The Kick Law Firm, Taras Kick and G. James Strenio for Michael McClain, Avi Feigenblatt and Gregory Fisher as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants. Morrison Foerster, Miriam A. Vogel, David F. McDowell and Samantha P. Goodman for Defendant and

  7. Decorative Carpets, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization

    58 Cal.2d 252 (Cal. 1962)   Cited 30 times
    In Decorative Carpets, the retailer misunderstood the proper method of computing a tax and collected more tax from its customers than it should have.

  8. General Elec. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization

    111 Cal.App.2d 180 (Cal. Ct. App. 1952)   Cited 26 times
    In Gen. Elec. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 180, the court agreed that the property installed by General, a steam generator, became an improvement to real property and was taxable to the owner of the real property, Pacific.

  9. Board of Permit Appeals v. Central Permit Bureau

    186 Cal.App.2d 633 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960)   Cited 12 times

    Docket No. 19566. November 23, 1960. PROCEEDING in mandamus to compel the San Francisco Central Permit Bureau to issue a building permit. Writ granted. Philip S. Ehrlich and Irving Rovens for Petitioners. Dion R. Holm, City Attorney, Michael B. Foley and George E. Baglin, Deputy City Attorneys, for Respondents. KAUFMAN, P.J. Petitioners, board of permit appeals, and Hilton Hotels Corporation (Hilton), real party in interest, seek mandate to compel respondents, central permit bureau and Owens, Director