Search for: "Martinez v. Combs"
Results 21 - 40
of 86
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 May 2018, 10:44 am
At issue in Dynamex was the scope of Martinez v. [read post]
1 May 2018, 4:00 am
Combs, 49 Cal.4th 35, 64 (2010)) (emphasis in original). [read post]
1 May 2018, 4:00 am
Combs, 49 Cal.4th 35, 64 (2010)) (emphasis in original). [read post]
27 Mar 2018, 11:49 am
In determining that 7-Eleven properly classified the franchisees as independent contractors, the court applied the three-prong test outlined by the California Supreme Court in Martinez v. [read post]
27 Mar 2018, 7:29 am
Finding the alleged facts “wholly insufficient” to create an employment relationship under the Martinez v. [read post]
23 Mar 2018, 1:56 pm
(See Martinez v. [read post]
7 Feb 2018, 10:52 pm
Borello & Sons, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Feb 2018, 12:17 pm
Combs (2010), or on the basis of the common law test for employment set forth in S. [read post]
15 Dec 2017, 10:31 pm
” Martinez v. [read post]
21 Jul 2017, 1:06 pm
[declining to apply the common law test in light of the history and purposes of the workers‘ compensation statute at issue]; Martinez v. [read post]
7 Jul 2017, 2:42 pm
Martinez v. [read post]
4 Jul 2017, 1:37 pm
(Martinez v. [read post]
8 Jun 2017, 12:00 pm
” (Mendoza, p. 20, Martinez v. [read post]
13 Jan 2017, 10:40 pm
The California Supreme Court held in Martinez v. [read post]
4 Jan 2017, 12:20 pm
The IWC definition of “employee” (as construed in Martinez v. [read post]
22 Jan 2016, 11:22 am
” Martinez v. [read post]
30 Sep 2015, 6:06 am
A 2010 California Supreme Court decision, Martinez v. [read post]
28 Aug 2015, 2:37 pm
(This statute followed Martinez v. [read post]
1 Jun 2015, 7:01 pm
Superior Court (Lee) (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 718 (discussed here) the Court of Appeal held that the IWC Wage Order definition of "employer" -- discussed in Martinez v. [read post]
