Search for: "Independent Acceptance Co. v. California"
Results 181 - 200
of 424
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Apr 2018, 5:53 am
In Fisher v. [read post]
14 Aug 2011, 3:49 pm
Our Group Manager, Bob Wilson president & CEO of WorkersCompensation.com, LLC, posted this article, “California Supreme Court Reverses Retro-Active COLA's in Baker V WCAB” this week as his manager’s choice. [read post]
13 Nov 2023, 5:05 am
In StarNet Insurance Co. v. [read post]
24 Apr 2020, 4:39 am
This has become a commonly accepted principle domestically and globally. [read post]
28 Nov 2010, 2:20 pm
., v. [read post]
1 Jun 2023, 12:37 pm
California. [read post]
24 Mar 2016, 9:01 pm
But last week the Ninth Circuit decided a case that shows how tricky government consideration of race can be, and how lower court judges sometimes make missteps in this complex area.The case is Mitchell v. [read post]
14 Feb 2022, 9:47 am
With respect to the latter point, one need only look back at a 2018 decision (San Francisco Police Officers’ Assn. v. [read post]
25 Feb 2010, 6:52 am
See, e.g., Scot Typewriter Co., 170 F. [read post]
4 Jan 2016, 8:00 pm
Bear Valley Mutual Water Co. v. [read post]
6 Jun 2007, 6:17 pm
He used the five-factor test for determining whether plaintiffs have antitrust standing articulated by the Supreme Court in Associated Federal Contractors of California, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Apr 2020, 12:14 pm
Thus, for instance, the California Supreme Court in Balboa Island Village Inn, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Jul 2016, 9:01 pm
For example, a few years ago in Arlington v. [read post]
17 Oct 2023, 11:26 am
Co. [read post]
27 Apr 2020, 6:30 pm
Co. v. [read post]
24 Jan 2014, 12:57 am
But, several recent decisions by federal district courts in California ruled that the BJR applies only to independent directors, not officers. [read post]
29 Aug 2016, 9:01 pm
This was a curious ruling at the time—three years after the California Supreme Court had said the opposite in the famous Marvin v. [read post]
9 Sep 2008, 2:14 pm
City of Independence, No. 07-2109 "In an employment action under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. section 1983, summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where: 1) defendant presented independently verifiable evidence of a good faith non-retaliatory reason for plaintiff's discharge; and 2) plaintiff's claims were tied to no provision of the Constitution. [read post]
23 Jul 2019, 6:00 am
[The Structure of NFIB v. [read post]
1 May 2009, 11:00 am
: In re Kubin and KSR International Co v Teleflex Inc (Patent Docs) US Patents – Decisions CAFC: USPTO, Tafas & GSK request extension for reconsideration (IP Watchdog) CAFC: Patent on sex aid is obvious: Ritchie v Vast Resources (AKA Topco) (Patently-O) (Hal Wegner) CAFC: Assigning patent rights: Euclid Chemical v Vector Corrosion (Patently-O) (Hal Wegner) District Court E D Michigan: LEDdynamics wins summary judgment in LED tube… [read post]
