Search for: "Murphy v. Cole"
Results 41 - 60
of 152
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Jul 2014, 6:05 am
In The New York Review of Books, David Cole reviews three recent books on the Roberts Court – Uncertain Justice (by Laurence Tribe and former SCOTUSblog contributor Joshua Matz), In the Balance (by Mark Tushnet), and Scalia (by Bruce Murphy) – and concludes that “what most defines the Roberts Court may be its hostility to courts themselves. [read post]
9 Apr 2014, 11:59 am
” Murphy v. [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 1:41 pm
The other day, I was blogging about tags, and somebody asked what are all the tags. [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]
4 May 2012, 11:51 am
See Murphy v. [read post]
4 May 2012, 6:28 am
See id.; see also Murphy v. [read post]
2 May 2012, 8:41 am
See Murphy v. [read post]
1 May 2012, 5:29 pm
The Court then explained its holding in light of Murphy v. [read post]
30 Apr 2012, 8:14 pm
The court reconciled two premises that seem to be at odds: (1) that the "premium pay" an employer owes for rest period violations is a "wage" (as the Court had previously held in Murphy v. [read post]
30 Apr 2012, 4:11 pm
" That argument was rooted in the California Supreme Court's 2007 decision 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]
29 Feb 2012, 8:25 am
’’ Kumho Tire Co. 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]
28 Apr 2011, 9:22 am
Cal. 2008) (applying Murphy v. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 6:02 am
Hall v. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 7:53 am
See United Parcel Service Wage and Hour Cases, __ Cal.App.4th __ (2011).With regard to meal and rest periods, the Court rejected the employer’s argument that the California Supreme Court’s analysis in Murphy v. [read post]
26 Feb 2011, 8:38 pm
UPS argued that 218.5 applied because the remedy under section 226.7 constitutes a wage under Murphy v. [read post]
25 Feb 2011, 2:03 pm
In Murphy v. [read post]
25 Feb 2011, 7:47 am
The Supreme Court did so in the Murphy v. [read post]
18 Feb 2011, 11:00 am
This was finally settled by the California Supreme Court's Murphy v. [read post]
