Search for: "Arthur Andersen LLP"
Results 41 - 60
of 180
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Feb 2019, 9:05 am
Arthur Andersen decision. [read post]
13 Feb 2019, 1:33 pm
Arthur Andersen LLP specifically held that post-employment non-compete and customer non-solicitation provisions were disallowed under California law regardless of their scope or reasonableness. [read post]
4 Feb 2019, 8:15 am
Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 937. [read post]
15 Nov 2018, 4:00 am
Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 937, the California Supreme Court set forth a broad prohibition against non-compete provisions, but it left open whether or to what extent employee non-solicit provisions were enforceable. [read post]
13 Nov 2018, 12:32 pm
Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal. 4th 937 (2008), which rejected a “reasonableness” standard when applying Section 16600. [read post]
2 Nov 2018, 10:05 am
Arthur Andersen LLP (2008). [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 7:06 pm
Jody James Farms, JV v. [read post]
10 Oct 2017, 2:58 am
… 19 Shamoun & Norman, LLP v. [read post]
8 Oct 2017, 10:12 am
See Shamoun & Norman, LLP v. [read post]
17 May 2017, 12:23 pm
’” In re Deepwater Horizon, 579 F App’x 256, 258 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (quoting Arthur Andersen LLP v. [read post]
27 Dec 2016, 12:28 pm
” Of course, you should really consider them before doing the bad thing in the first place, so this is sort of a fallback position. 1 See Arthur Andersen LLP v. [read post]
26 Oct 2016, 8:35 am
In Arthur Andersen LLP v. [read post]
2 Oct 2015, 6:41 am
On April 6, 2015, the Quapaw Tribe filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the following three grounds: (1) that the Government is liable for annual educational payments of $1,000 from 1932 to the present under the Treaty of 1833; (2) that the Government is liable for $31,680.80 in unauthorized disbursements from the Quapaw Tribe’s trust accounts, as found in the 1995 Tribal Trust Funds Reconciliation Project Report prepared by Arthur Andersen LLP; and (3)… [read post]
4 Sep 2015, 11:48 am
See Arthur Andersen LLP v. [read post]
21 Apr 2015, 9:06 am
Arthur Andersen, LLP (Edwards), 189 P.2d 285 (Cal. 2008). [read post]
20 Apr 2015, 11:37 am
Arthur Andersen LLP, 189 P.3d 285 (Cal. 2008), where the California supreme court “rejected a proposed rule—apparently suggested by earlier California cases and extended by the Ninth Circuit—‘that a mere limitation on an employee’s ability to practice his or her vocation would be permissible under section 16600, as long as it was reasonably based’. [read post]
15 Apr 2015, 8:55 am
Arthur Andersen LLP, 189 P.3d 285 (Cal. 2008); City of Oakland v. [read post]
13 Apr 2015, 12:06 pm
Arthur Andersen LLP, 189 P.3d 285 (Cal. 2008); City of Oakland v. [read post]
12 Apr 2015, 2:45 pm
Arthur Andersen LLP, 189 P.3d 285 (Cal. 2008), where the California supreme court “rejected a proposed rule—apparently suggested by earlier California cases and extended by the Ninth Circuit—‘that a mere limitation on an employee’s ability to practice his or her vocation would be permissible under section 16600, as long as it was reasonably based’. [read post]
12 Apr 2015, 2:45 pm
Arthur Andersen LLP, 189 P.3d 285 (Cal. 2008), where the California supreme court “rejected a proposed rule—apparently suggested by earlier California cases and extended by the Ninth Circuit—‘that a mere limitation on an employee’s ability to practice his or her vocation would be permissible under section 16600, as long as it was reasonably based’. [read post]
