Legal Opinion
Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. Kintetsu Enterprises of America
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 6, 2006No. B169636PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
COOPER, P. J.
In 2002, the Legislature required judicial review of Proposition 65 settlements because of concern that “in some cases, defendants and private plaintiffs have found common ground by entering into a settlement that does not provide any real protection to the public in the event of a violation, but does provide compensation to the plaintiffs’ attorneys.” (Sen. Rules Com., Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 471 (2001-2002 Reg. Sess.) as amended Sept. 13, 2001, pp. 3-4.) The Legislature sought to prevent settlements “which simply result ion [sic] inadequate public warning in exchange…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- In Re Wireless Telephone Federal Cost Recovery Fees LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2005
- Steven A. v. Rickie M.California Supreme Court · 1992
- Cheryl Reynolds v. Beneficial National Bank, Appeals of Belinda PetersonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2002
- California Manufacturers Ass'n v. Public Utilities CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2001
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Kaufman v. GoldmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Luckey v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- Bidari v. KelkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2023
- Chemical Toxin Working Group v. Best Naturals, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2026
- Moniz v. Adecco USACalifornia Court of Appeal · 2021
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.