65 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 216,278 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
  2. Conley v. Gibson

    355 U.S. 41 (1957)   Cited 58,501 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief"
  3. Los Angeles v. Lyons

    461 U.S. 95 (1983)   Cited 7,503 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding there is no justiciable controversy where plaintiff had once been subjected to a chokehold
  4. Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

    29 Cal.4th 1134 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 1,655 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff cannot recover damages under Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 17200 unless plaintiff has "an ownership interest in the money it seeks to recover"
  5. In re Tobacco II Cases

    46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 1,203 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
  6. Williams v. Gerber Products

    552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 917 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "reasonable consumers expect that the ingredient list ... confirms other representations on the packaging"
  7. Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

    530 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 911 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "claims under the Magnuson–Moss Act stand or fall with express and implied warranty claims under state law"
  8. Bates v. U. P. S

    511 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 738 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding where claim involved facially discriminatory qualification standard, the Teamsters burden-shifting protocol is inapplicable
  9. Kennedy v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co.

    952 F.2d 262 (9th Cir. 1991)   Cited 784 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court may discount a "sham" declaration that "flatly contradicts" earlier deposition testimony, and was provided for the sole purpose of creating a genuine issue of material fact
  10. Yeager v. Bowlin

    693 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 330 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding district court can apply sham affidavit rule to "prevent[] a party who has been examined at length on deposition from raising an issue of fact simply by submitting an affidavit contradicting h[er] own prior testimony." (quotations and alterations omitted)
  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,681 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
  12. Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200   Cited 17,833 times   315 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting unlawful business practices
  13. Section 1750 - Title of act

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1750   Cited 2,671 times   67 Legal Analyses

    This title may be cited as the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Ca. Civ. Code § 1750 Added by Stats. 1970, Ch. 1550.

  14. Section 17500 - Untrue or misleading advertising

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500   Cited 2,658 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Requiring action that originated in California to effect consumers in another state
  15. Rule 611 - Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 611   Cited 1,888 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Granting trial judge broad discretion to control witness examination
  16. Section 101.13 - Nutrient content claims-general principles

    21 C.F.R. § 101.13   Cited 165 times   10 Legal Analyses
    In 21 C.F.R. § 101.13, the FDA lists general principles regulating nutrient content claims-claims that expressly or implicitly characterize the level of a nutrient.
  17. Section 101.54 - Nutrient content claims for "good source," "high," "more," and "high potency."

    21 C.F.R. § 101.54   Cited 58 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Defining "contains"
  18. Section 10.85 - Advisory opinions

    21 C.F.R. § 10.85   Cited 44 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Providing that an FDA employee's written statement, which constitutes "an informal communication," "does not necessarily represent the formal position of FDA," a statement that by its terms contemplates that certain employee statements may do so
  19. Section 101.62 - Nutrient content claims for fat, fatty acid, and cholesterol content of foods

    21 C.F.R. § 101.62   Cited 25 times   4 Legal Analyses

    (a)General requirements. A claim about the level of fat, fatty acid, and cholesterol in a food may only be made on the label or in the labeling of foods if: (1) The claim uses one of the terms defined in this section in accordance with the definition for that term; (2) The claim is made in accordance with the general requirements for nutrient content claims in § 101.13 ; (3) The food for which the claim is made is labeled in accordance with § 101.9 , § 101.10 , or § 101.36 , as applicable; and (4)

  20. Section 101.56 - Nutrient content claims for "light" or "lite."

    21 C.F.R. § 101.56   Cited 2 times

    (a)General requirements. A claim using the term light or lite to describe a food may only be made on the label or in labeling of the food if: (1) The claim uses one of the terms defined in this section in accordance with the definition for that term; (2) The claim is made in accordance with the general requirements for nutrient content claims in § 101.13 ; and (3) The food is labeled in accordance with § 101.9 or § 101.10 , where applicable. (b)"Light" claims. The terms "light" or "lite" may be used