Search for: "BRIGHT V US"
Results 2701 - 2720
of 3,348
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Nov 2010, 2:38 pm
In Bright v. 99¢ ONLY STORES, the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Five) held that (1) violations of Wage Order No. 7, subdivision 14 are violations of section 1198; and (2) civil penalties under section 2699, subdivision (f) are available despite the fact that Commission wage order No. 7-2001 has its own penalty provision. [read post]
15 Nov 2010, 8:28 am
In Marlow v. [read post]
13 Nov 2010, 8:08 pm
Thus, section 2699, subdivision (f), by its terms, allows for a civil penalty for violations of section 1198 based on failure to comply with the suitable seating requirement.The case is Bright v. 99 c Only Stores, Inc. and the opinion is here.DGVSHAW VALENZA LLP - http://shawvalenza.com [read post]
12 Nov 2010, 12:55 pm
” (Kilby v. [read post]
12 Nov 2010, 3:41 am
This case tells us what to do when the Complaint does not specify a damages amount. [read post]
12 Nov 2010, 3:07 am
An early example of the Great British double entendre Zoe Renault v Renault Zoe. [read post]
8 Nov 2010, 8:42 am
Whether to bring inequitable conduct into the case: risk v. reward. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 5:21 pm
State v. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 11:54 am
And not surprisingly, a bright-line rule has not surfaced. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 11:40 am
At least with obscenity, we have one bright-line test: Is sexual penetration shown? [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 5:18 am
Like the thermal imaging devices in Kyllo, the cellular location technology in use or development today crosses the "firm but also bright" Fourth Amendment line that the Supreme Court has drawn at the entrance to the house. [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 3:28 am
State v. [read post]
1 Nov 2010, 2:46 am
XX v HMRC (IP finance) United States US Patents ‘Sub-standard’ patents cost the US economy over $25 billion a year. [read post]
31 Oct 2010, 9:12 pm
If Menagh v. [read post]
29 Oct 2010, 11:54 am
(Eugene Volokh) From Menagh v. [read post]
27 Oct 2010, 1:37 pm
We confess that we read McAdams v. [read post]
25 Oct 2010, 5:20 am
In McMillen v. [read post]
22 Oct 2010, 9:53 am
A workers compensation case about the proof needed to show “total loss of use. [read post]
22 Oct 2010, 4:51 am
The Eighth Circuit’s decision in United States v. [read post]
