Search for: "S B Mart Inc"
Results 321 - 340
of 767
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Aug 2014, 1:22 pm
All of these manufacturing corporations form part of Apparel Mart’s “supply chain. [read post]
30 Oct 2013, 11:43 am
Posted by Greg MersolDespite blockbuster cases like Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 9:46 am
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Apr 2015, 6:15 am
K-mart Corp. [read post]
7 Oct 2015, 4:46 pm
Supp. 3d 521 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (applying Upjohn to protect internal investigation records, including witnesses communications); In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 756 F.3d 754 (D.C. [read post]
1 Aug 2017, 3:57 pm
The court also discusses Delaware Rule of Evidence 502(b) in the context of the analysis, as well as the Delaware Supreme Court’s Section 220 decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., in 2014, highlighted on these pages here, which endorsed the application of Garner, which had been applied for many years previously by the Court of Chancery. [read post]
13 Mar 2015, 8:19 am
Supreme Court decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 9:24 am
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 575 F.3d 1312, 1327 (Fed. [read post]
17 Jul 2011, 7:19 am
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 09-CIV-4932(TNO), 2011 WL 1389510, *4 (E.D.Pa. [read post]
31 Dec 2010, 9:45 am
December 6 – Supreme Court grants certiorari in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Mar 2009, 2:53 am
Wal-Mart, Inc., a Title VII case brought by current and former employees alleging sexual discrimination as to pay and managerial promotions. [read post]
16 Jun 2021, 7:56 am
USA, Inc., which held that so long as an employee has suffered one Labor Code violation, he or she has state-proxy status to pursue PAGA penalties for alleged Labor Code violations not personally suffered but allegedly suffered by others. b) Ninth Circuit’ [read post]
15 Jan 2014, 8:47 am
In its ruling, the Court of Appeals confirmed that, because Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42 was “patterned after Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, federal decisions and authorities interpreting current federal class action requirements are instructive,” including Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
31 Dec 2009, 2:17 am
Based on the Task Force letter, appellants moved the district court and were granted leave to file a second amended complaint to add the following defendants to the action: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; Longs Drug Stores Co.; Walgreen Co.; CVS Pharmacy, Inc.; Rite-Aid; Albertson's Inc., d/b/a Sav-on Pharmacy; and Lam's Pharmacy, Inc. [read post]
27 Feb 2012, 7:29 am
Dukes, 131 S. [read post]
7 Jan 2014, 6:34 am
More than any other development in 2013, the decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Nov 2016, 5:35 am
” In re Dairy Mart Convenience Store, Inc., 302 B.R. 128 (Bankr. [read post]
5 Oct 2010, 11:05 pm
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc), the trial court applied essentially identical standards and correctly decided the issue. [read post]
12 Aug 2015, 12:10 pm
One wonders how this invitation to certify now and decertify later when more evidence is in satisfies the Supreme Court’s view that Rule 23(b)(3) “requires the judge to make findings about predominance and superiority before allow allowing the class,” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Aug 2017, 2:57 am
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
