Search for: "Hi-Way Dispatch, Inc. v. United States"
Results 21 - 40
of 63
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Dec 2009, 4:51 am
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has adopted a three step approach to aid courts in determining whether an activity constitutes “work” for purposes of the FLSA. [read post]
8 Jan 2011, 1:41 pm
I reflected on this while reading a virtually fresh-off-the-press copy of a judgment rendered by the (IP)-influential United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth District in the case of UMG Recordings, Inc. v Troy Augusto, No. 08-55998 (January 4, 2011) here. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 2:37 pm
Introduction In going all the way to the United States Supreme Court, Kelo v. [read post]
23 Nov 2014, 12:00 am
In many ways, the bill would have subjected ridesharing drivers to some of the same regulations and expectations the state already imposes upon professional taxi services.[16] When all of these provisions presumably would have been in the interest of the safety of the people of the state, and professional taxi companies are subject to even stricter state regulation, why did… [read post]
15 Jan 2010, 10:32 pm
The system recognizes the user in one of two ways. [read post]
1 Nov 2016, 3:56 am
Here in the United States, Uber has been mired in a class action in the Northern District of California, among other litigation. [read post]
24 Feb 2020, 7:01 am
United States v. [read post]
9 May 2014, 8:54 am
In Pitcairn Properties, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Apr 2020, 4:41 pm
It is the way in which such accounting is tied to moral value. [read post]
8 Sep 2020, 11:30 am
United States v. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 2:55 pm
In a sense, that’s not terribly surprising, since Judge David Hamilton had previously taken the same track (if less explicitly) in his previous opinion while still on a district court judge in Hofts v. [read post]
23 May 2017, 10:45 am
Facebook’s minimum contacts with the United States are beyond dispute. [read post]
20 Aug 2011, 4:00 am
http://j.st/SZM Life Partners, Inc., et al. v. [read post]
8 May 2010, 8:53 am
The Legal Satyricon blog has a post about United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in Murphy v. [read post]
8 May 2015, 9:18 am
United States, 14-419. [read post]
13 May 2024, 7:36 am
” hiQ Labs, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Sep 2009, 2:04 pm
In Schroer v. [read post]
12 Nov 2015, 11:30 am
United States, 15-5238, out of the way. [read post]
5 Nov 2011, 9:14 am
http://j.st/GqZ United States v. [read post]
28 Jun 2021, 9:45 am
Rather, it should be read as objectionable in ways "similar in nature" to the ways that the preceding terms are objectionable.[12] [B.] [read post]
