Jump to Navigation

FindLaw News

Case Summaries

Commercial Law

[06/14] Retail Digital Network LLC v. Prieto
In an action challenging, on First Amendment grounds, California Business and Professions Code section 25503(f)-(h), which prohibits alcohol manufacturers and wholesalers from providing anything of value to retailers in exchange for advertising their alcohol products, the district court's summary judgment in favor of the Acting Director of the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control is affirmed by an en banc court where: 1) thirty years ago, in Actmedia, Inc. v. Stroh, 830 F.2d 957 (9th Cir. 1986), this Circuit rejected a First Amendment challenge to the same California and Professions Code provision; and 2) the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011) did not modify the Central Hudson test that been applied in Actmedia.

[06/08] Williams v. American Honda Finance
In a putative class action brought by a borrower-plaintiff against an auto loan financier that repossessed plaintiff's car after she defaulted on the loan and sent her two notices in connection with its efforts to sell the car and collect any deficiency owed on the loan--a pre-sale notice and a post-sale notice--alleging that each of the two notices violated the Uniform Commercial Code and Massachusetts consumer protection laws, three questions are certified to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court pursuant to Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rule 1:03.

[06/05] E.J. Brooks Co. v. Cambridge Sec. Seals
In a suit for misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment under New York law, the district court's judgment is affirmed as it relates to defendant's liability but deferred pending the resolution of two questions certified to the New York Court of Appeals.

[06/02] People v. Overstock.Com, Inc
In a suit against an online retailer, the trial court's judgment that defendant had engaged in unfair business practices, Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200 et seq., and false advertising, section 17500 et seq., is affirmed over defendant's meritless arguments that the court imposed excessive penalties and improperly ordered injunctive relief.

Read More

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.

HOW CAN
WE HELP YOU?
CONTACT US
fill out our 1-step form ›

Let Us Help You -
Contact Our Firm Today:

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

Office Location

The Jackson Law Firm
3900 Essex Lane Suite 1116
Houston, Tx 77027

Local 713.574.5181
Toll Free 877.475.3058
Fax 713.527.8850
Houston Law Office Map

Review Us