Search for: "Marts v. State" Results 201 - 220 of 2,118
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Jan 2020, 9:16 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Filings of “smaller” employment discrimination class actions have increased due to a strategy whereby state or regional-type classes are asserted more often than the type of nationwide mega-cases that Wal-Mart discouraged. [read post]
9 Jan 2020, 9:16 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Filings of “smaller” employment discrimination class actions have increased due to a strategy whereby state or regional-type classes are asserted more often than the type of nationwide mega-cases that Wal-Mart discouraged. [read post]
7 Jan 2020, 10:28 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Plaintiffs’ lawyers continued to craft refined class certification theories to counter the more stringent Rule 23 certification requirements established in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Jan 2020, 10:28 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Plaintiffs’ lawyers continued to craft refined class certification theories to counter the more stringent Rule 23 certification requirements established in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Jan 2020, 8:29 am by Nassiri Law
Wal-Mart, Inc., in effect reaffirming the state’s definition of what qualifies as compensable work. [read post]
30 Dec 2019, 11:13 am by Steven Cohen
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al – United States District Court – Southern District of Mississippi – June 5th) involves a slip and fall. [read post]
5 Dec 2019, 2:10 pm by John Rubin
The State asserted that the officer testified that he observed a video at the mini-mart where the truck was parked showing the defendant getting out of the truck. [read post]
29 Oct 2019, 7:10 am by Aditi Shah
First, because the Ninth Circuit already recognized that some class members in this case may not have a constitutional right to bond hearings, the class may no longer satisfy the Supreme Court’s standard articulated in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Sep 2019, 11:38 am by Rebecca Tushnet
(The court mentions inherent distinctiveness but of course that’s not possible under Wal-Mart v. [read post]