Dunckel v. Failing

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• observing that the “UCL cannot be used to state a cause of action the gist of which is absolutely barred under some other principle of law”
• section 17200 includes “anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the same time is forbidden by law”
• superseded in part by Prop. 64, as recognized in Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn’s, LLC, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 227
• private for-profit plaintiff that suffered no injury may sue to obtain relief for others for § 17200 violation
• “To overcome the presumption the two acts must be irreconcilable, clearly repugnant, and so inconsistent that the two cannot have concurrent-operation.”
• abrogated on other grounds by Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 17204 (2004)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).