Search for: "Murphy v. Cole"
Results 41 - 60
of 152
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Apr 2007, 4:49 pm
In Murphy v. [read post]
4 Oct 2007, 4:15 pm
The subject is San Francisco Superior Court Judge Anne Bouliane's ruling on the attorney's fees motion in Murphy v. [read post]
25 Apr 2012, 1:14 pm
Superior Court (4/12/12) --- Cal.4th ---, was probably the most highly anticipated Supreme Court employment law decision since Murphy v. [read post]
4 May 2012, 6:28 am
See id.; see also Murphy v. [read post]
14 Apr 2007, 8:17 am
The second, which is probably the most eagerly anticipated wage and hour opinion in more than a year, is Murphy v. [read post]
19 Apr 2007, 5:19 am
Murphy v. [read post]
28 Oct 2010, 2:01 pm
Murphy v. [read post]
7 May 2008, 6:00 am
Judge Velasquez held that waiting time penalties under Labor Code section 203 were recoverable under the UCL as "restitution": In similar fashion to the "additional hour of pay" [in Murphy v. [read post]
21 May 2008, 11:27 am
(E.g., Murphy v. [read post]
6 Nov 2012, 5:50 am
Murphy, and has only acted in the best interests of the city,” said David Wolpin, an attorney with Weiss Serota Helfman Pastoriza Cole & Boniske who represents Aventura. [read post]
9 Mar 2007, 5:14 pm
The blog Wage Law has a nice report on the argument, compiled by Michael Walsh from notes provided to him by several attorneys who attended. [read post]
17 Apr 2007, 12:30 pm
Los Angeles Times: "Employees win major ruling on pay regulations" by Molly Selvin San Francisco Chronicle: "Workers who missed lunch breaks entitled to back pay, court says" by Bob Egelko [read post]
16 May 2008, 11:00 am
(Murphy v. [read post]
29 Oct 2010, 9:18 am
The answer to both questions is no.A few years ago, when we were all waiting for a decision in Murphy v. [read post]
7 May 2007, 1:12 am
Murphy, 984 F.2d 196, 199 (7th Cir.1993)). [read post]
17 Nov 2010, 3:42 pm
The thrust of the argument in opposition is that Section 226.7 premium wages should be governed by Section 1194, not only because Section 226.7 proscribes a statutorily mandated wage, but also because the California Supreme Court concluded in Murphy v. [read post]
22 Dec 2008, 3:47 pm
Superior Court (Kimco) (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 225 (review denied), the Third Division disregarded a discussion in Murphy v. [read post]
7 Jul 2011, 5:45 pm
" The Court then discussed the policies behind overtime pay, split shift premiums, meal period premiums, and the like, quoting extensively from Murphy v. [read post]
25 Oct 2007, 7:00 am
The California Supreme Court decided earlier this year, in Murphy v. [read post]
29 May 2018, 5:12 pm
(See Murphy v. [read post]
