Search for: "State v. Kim" Results 501 - 520 of 1,290
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Dec 2015, 5:25 am by Andrew Frisch
Nov. 23, 2010) (unpublished) (allowing recovery of liquidated damages under both FLSA and state law because the provisions “serve different purposes—the FLSA damages are compensatory and the [state law] damages serve a punitive purpose”); Do Yea Kim v. 167 Nail Plaza, No. 05 CV 8560 (GBD), 2008 WL 2676598, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. [read post]
14 Dec 2015, 5:25 am by Andrew Frisch
Nov. 23, 2010) (unpublished) (allowing recovery of liquidated damages under both FLSA and state law because the provisions “serve different purposes—the FLSA damages are compensatory and the [state law] damages serve a punitive purpose”); Do Yea Kim v. 167 Nail Plaza, No. 05 CV 8560 (GBD), 2008 WL 2676598, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. [read post]
28 Jul 2024, 1:15 pm by Blair & Kim, PLLC
  Contact Blair & Kim, PLLC, at (206) 622-6562 to set up a consultation. [read post]
15 Apr 2020, 10:28 am by Blair & Kim, PLLC
  The commissioner stated, “I’m not going to take testimony at these hearings” and referenced Gourley v. [read post]
15 Jun 2016, 11:47 am by CJLF Staff
  Matt Bittle of the Delaware State News reports that in Rauf v. [read post]
4 Apr 2014, 8:51 am by WIMS
Appeals Court Environmental Decisions <> Supreme Court: McCutcheon v. [read post]
6 Nov 2019, 3:55 am by Edith Roberts
For The Washington Post (subscription required), Robert Barnes and Seung Min Kim report that “[i]f Chief Justice John G. [read post]
11 Apr 2025, 5:08 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The words “legal malpractice” are mentioned only in passing, yet Medical Supply of NY Corp. v State Farm Mut. [read post]
20 May 2016, 7:20 am by Amy Howe
And in Luna Torres v. [read post]
8 May 2010, 8:41 am by Dwight Sullivan
Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898); Luria v. [read post]
8 Jan 2010, 2:33 am by gmlevine
Registering domain names composed of dictionary words improves the likelihood of good faith even if they conflict with existing trademarks, Kim Laube & Company Inc. v. [read post]