Search for: "STATE v MURPHY"
Results 2241 - 2260
of 2,306
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Apr 2007, 2:10 pm
US v. [read post]
18 Apr 2007, 9:16 am
Murphy, No. 05-50608 (4-18-07). [read post]
17 Apr 2007, 6:12 pm
I'm not going to do an in depth analysis of yesterday's Cal Supremes decision in Murphy v. [read post]
17 Apr 2007, 11:30 am
Murphy v. [read post]
17 Apr 2007, 9:40 am
The Los Angeles Times reports this morning:The California Supreme Court handed workers a major victory Monday, in effect tripling the back pay they can seek if they are forced to work through meal and rest breaks required by state law. [read post]
16 Apr 2007, 12:11 pm
After thorough arguments from both sides of the debate, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Murphy v. [read post]
16 Apr 2007, 11:46 am
"On Additional Hour of Pay" under California Labor Code Section 226.7 Constitutes Wage or Premium Pay Subject to Three-Year Statute of Limitations Period, not a Penalty Subject to One-Year Limitations Period, California Supreme Court Holds In a case that will have a substantial and immediate impact on labor law class action cases, the California Supreme Court today issued its long-awaited decision in Murphy v. [read post]
12 Apr 2007, 12:25 pm
Davies, An Account of Mapp v. [read post]
8 Apr 2007, 4:17 am
Murphy, emeritus of Princeton University. [read post]
9 Mar 2007, 3:10 pm
Murphy spoke about the importance of having an enforceable ethics code. [read post]
8 Mar 2007, 8:19 am
Murphy, Jr.Appellant was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Cecil County of two felonious violations of the Maryland Controlled Dangerous Substances Act and of the False Statement to a Law Enforcement Officer offense proscribed by Md. [read post]
7 Mar 2007, 12:19 am
Murphy Bros. v. [read post]
4 Mar 2007, 7:33 am
United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153 (1972), United States v. [read post]
2 Mar 2007, 2:09 am
See, North Carolina v. [read post]
2 Mar 2007, 12:49 am
Murphy Bros. v. [read post]
28 Feb 2007, 10:12 am
State v. [read post]
27 Feb 2007, 11:30 am
The taxpayer and the Government have filed briefs on the application of Murphy v. [read post]
25 Feb 2007, 1:00 pm
I didn't check the state database. [read post]
24 Feb 2007, 3:34 am
Loving v. [read post]
2 Feb 2007, 6:54 am
Further, the court rejected the State's claim that recent legislative changes to the Victim's Rights Act had effectively overruled the holding in Pouncey v. [read post]
