Search for: "Cicairos v. Summit Logistics"
Results 21 - 40
of 47
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Feb 2009, 4:59 pm
Summit Logistics, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 949. [read post]
13 Feb 2009, 7:00 am
Summit Logistics (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 949 and Bufil v. [read post]
18 Dec 2008, 6:00 pm
" This, despite the fact that an earlier case, Cicairos v. [read post]
10 Dec 2008, 9:00 pm
Summit Logistics, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 949 would make a compelling case for Supreme Court review. [read post]
29 Oct 2008, 10:00 pm
Summit Logistics, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 949 regarding the extent of an employer's duty to make sure employees can take their lunch breaks. [read post]
27 Oct 2008, 5:39 pm
The memo also disapproves of the Cicairos v. [read post]
24 Oct 2008, 10:00 pm
Federal Express Corporation(C.D.Cal. 2008) 249 F.R.D. 580, 585, and to disregard the only binding precedent in California, Cicairos v Summit Logistics, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 949, 962, because its "interpretation of California's meal period requirements is not compelling. [read post]
3 Aug 2008, 3:16 am
In a July 25, 2008 Memorandum entitled Binding Court Ruling on Meal and Rest Period Requirements, Angela Bradstreet, the Labor Commissioner, described Brinker as a "binding court ruling," without noting that Brinker is one of two decisions that interpret regulations governing meal breaks (the other being Cicairos v Summit Logistics, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal App.4th 949, which still stands as valid authority). [read post]
31 Jul 2008, 3:00 am
Bufil followed Cicairos v. [read post]
30 Jul 2008, 1:08 am
The court distinguished the decision in Cicairos v. [read post]
29 Jul 2008, 2:40 pm
Summit Logistics, Inc. (2006) 133 Cal.App.4th 949, concluding that the facts in Cicairos established that the employer failed to make meal periods available to employees and that the court there only decided meal periods must be provided, not ensured.14 All staff must follow the rulings in the Brinker decision effective immediately and the decision shall be applied to pending matters. [read post]
24 Jul 2008, 1:36 am
Summit Logistics, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 949, 962-963, which it discussed at length, and Bufil v. [read post]
23 Jul 2008, 1:00 pm
Summit Logistics, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 949, 962-963, which it discussed at length, and Bufil v. [read post]
23 Jul 2008, 10:02 am
Summit Logistics, Inc., 133 Cal.App.4th 949 (2005), and says, "With Brinker and Cicairos presenting such starkly contrasting views on California law, with Brinker presenting so many novel ideas regarding wage and hour claims and class actions, and with so many U.S. [read post]
23 Jul 2008, 6:38 am
Summit Logistics, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 949, 962-963, which it discussed at length, and Bufil v. [read post]
16 Jul 2008, 1:00 pm
Summit Logistics, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 949, 961-963). [read post]
17 Jun 2008, 6:24 am
Summit Logistics, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 949, 961-963). [read post]
11 Jun 2008, 10:38 pm
Summit Logistics, Inc. [read post]
23 Apr 2008, 8:00 am
Summit Logistics under the principle of stare decisis. [read post]
8 Apr 2008, 12:45 pm
Summit Logistics, Inc. compelled a contrary conclusion. [read post]
