Consumer Cause, Inc. v. Smilecare
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MALLANO, J.
Plaintiff filed this action, alleging a violation of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as Proposition 65. Plaintiff alleged that defendants, providers of dental care, violated the act by failing to warn employees and patients that standard amalgam fillings, also called “silver fillings,” contain mercury and mercury compounds, which are reproductive toxins. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which was based on an affirmative defense.
We conclude that the trial court misapplied the burden of producing…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
- Bertero v. National General Corp.California Supreme Court · 1974
- People ex rel. Lungren v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- Ramirez v. Yosemite Water CompanyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- Suk Yong Kim v. Sumitomo BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by44 opinions
- Kids' Universe v. In2labsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Cornell v. Berkeley Tennis Club, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- Jessen v. Mentor Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2008
- Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2005
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.