Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 California opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc.green2 sentences2019(Cf. Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc. (2010) 49 Cal.4th 758 , 790, 111 Cal.Rptr.3d 666 , 233 P.3d 1066 ["[T]he right to seek injunctive relief under section 17203 is not dependent on the right to seek restitution"].) But appellants conceded the no-premium-wages policy ended in June 2007 and did not seek to enjoin it. ( Safeway , supra , 238 Cal.App.4th at p. 1152 , 190 Cal.Rptr.3d 131 .) We acknowledged that the time punch data and evidentiary presumption could establish that "a significant number of employees" accrued premium wages, but distinguished such a showing from the different showing that "a 2019(Cf. Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc. (2010) 49 Cal.4th 758 , 790, 111 Cal.Rptr.3d 666 , 233 P.3d 1066 ["[T]he right to seek injunctive relief under section 17203 is not dependent on the right to seek restitution"].) But appellants conceded the no-premium-wages policy ended in June 2007 and did not seek to enjoin it. ( Safeway , supra , 238 Cal.App.4th at p. 1152 , 190 Cal.Rptr.3d 131 .) We acknowledged that the time punch data and evidentiary presumption could establish that "a significant number of employees" accrued premium wages, but distinguished such a showing from the different showing that "a | 3 | 4 |
Nelson v. Pearson Ford Co.red2 sentences2012A trial court has “broad power under the UCL to ‘enjoin on-going wrongful business conduct in whatever context such activity might occur.’ [Citations.]” (Nelson v. Pearson Ford Co. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 983, 1015 [ 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 607 ].) The FAL does not prevent a plaintiff from maintaining a state law action in state court for an alleged failure to disclose a particular rate or rate practice. 2012A trial court has “broad power under the UCL to ‘enjoin on-going wrongful business conduct in whatever context such activity might occur.’ [Citations.]” (Nelson v. Pearson Ford Co. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 983, 1015 [ 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 607 ].) The FAL does not prevent a plaintiff from maintaining a state law action in state court for an alleged failure to disclose a particular rate or rate practice. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Tobacco II Casesgreen2 sentences2010Section 17203 makes injunctive relief “the primary form of relief available under the UCL,” while restitution is merely “ancillary.” (In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 319 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 559 , 207 P.3d 20 ].) Nothing in the statute’s language conditions a court’s authority to order injunctive relief on the need in a given case to also order restitution. 2010Section 17203 makes injunctive relief “the primary form of relief available under the UCL,” while restitution is merely “ancillary.” (In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 319 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 559 , 207 P.3d 20 ].) Nothing in the statute’s language conditions a court’s authority to order injunctive relief on the need in a given case to also order restitution. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Safeway, Inc. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2019(Cf. Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc. (2010) 49 Cal.4th 758 , 790, 111 Cal.Rptr.3d 666 , 233 P.3d 1066 ["[T]he right to seek injunctive relief under section 17203 is not dependent on the right to seek restitution"].) But appellants conceded the no-premium-wages policy ended in June 2007 and did not seek to enjoin it. ( Safeway , supra , 238 Cal.App.4th at p. 1152 , 190 Cal.Rptr.3d 131 .) We acknowledged that the time punch data and evidentiary presumption could establish that "a significant number of employees" accrued premium wages, but distinguished such a showing from the different showing that "a 2019(Cf. Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc. (2010) 49 Cal.4th 758 , 790, 111 Cal.Rptr.3d 666 , 233 P.3d 1066 ["[T]he right to seek injunctive relief under section 17203 is not dependent on the right to seek restitution"].) But appellants conceded the no-premium-wages policy ended in June 2007 and did not seek to enjoin it. ( Safeway , supra , 238 Cal.App.4th at p. 1152 , 190 Cal.Rptr.3d 131 .) We acknowledged that the time punch data and evidentiary presumption could establish that "a significant number of employees" accrued premium wages, but distinguished such a showing from the different showing that "a | 3 | 2019–2019 |
Madani v. Rabinowitz
green
1 sentence2020That, of course, is not the law. ‘Section 17203 makes injunctive relief “the primary form of relief available under the UCL,” while restitution is merely “ancillary.”’ [Citation.]” (Id. at pp. 801- 802.) The parties disagree on our standard of review. “‘Whether a plaintiff “is entitled to a particular measure of damages is a question of law subject to de novo review. [Citations.] The amount of damages, on the other hand, is a fact question . . . 5 [and] an award of damages will not be disturbed if it is supported by substantial evidence.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Madani v. Rabinowitz (2020) | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Day v. AT & T CORP.
green
1 sentence2012(Day, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at p. 332 .) Section 17203 provides for injunctive relief in the case of unfair competition. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Klamath-Orleans Lumber, Inc. v. Miller
green
2 sentences1990Business and Professions Code section 17200 provides: “As used in this chapter, unfair competition shall mean and include unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code.” Business and Professions Code section 17203 provides for injunctive relief against “[a]ny person performing or proposing to perform an act of unfair competition within this state.” In Klamath-Orleans Lumber, Inc. v. Miller (1978) 87 Cal.App.3 1990Business and Professions Code section 17200 provides: “As used in this chapter, unfair competition shall mean and include unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code.” Business and Professions Code section 17203 provides for injunctive relief against “[a]ny person performing or proposing to perform an act of unfair competition within this state.” In Klamath-Orleans Lumber, Inc. v. Miller (1978) 87 Cal.App.3 | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.