Search for: "California v. Force"
Results 6021 - 6040
of 6,451
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Aug 2008, 7:06 pm
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, July 30, 2008 US v. [read post]
4 Aug 2008, 5:43 pm
Georgia (1972) 408 U.S. 238, until rendered moot by the California Supreme Court decision in People v. [read post]
2 Aug 2008, 6:10 am
By Eric Goldman Verizon California, Inc. v. [read post]
31 Jul 2008, 8:24 pm
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the necessary mechanisms to ensure compliance with the White v. [read post]
30 Jul 2008, 9:32 pm
,dba AT&T California v. linkLine Communications (07-512). [read post]
30 Jul 2008, 4:24 am
-This is questionable since guidelines have no force of law. [read post]
29 Jul 2008, 2:40 pm
Finally, if an employee files in court, the DLSE memo will not have much force. [read post]
28 Jul 2008, 8:12 pm
Basileh v. [read post]
28 Jul 2008, 10:41 am
See Tucker v. [read post]
27 Jul 2008, 12:24 am
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen v. [read post]
25 Jul 2008, 7:04 am
, (Daily Dose of IP), 26 August: WIPO symposium on IP and multilateral agreements – Geneva: (IPKat), 11-12 September: US LSI: 4th annual conference on ‘Current issues in complex IP licensing’ – Philadelphia: (Patent Docs), 11 September/15 October: PLI seminar on developments in pharmaceutical and biotech patent law – New York/San Francisco: (Patent Docs), 15-16 September: UniForum & SAIIPL domain name ADR workshop – Centurion (South… [read post]
24 Jul 2008, 10:00 pm
State of California, 72 Cal. [read post]
24 Jul 2008, 7:08 pm
In what is a major victory for California employers, the California Court of Appeal held yesterday in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. [read post]
24 Jul 2008, 4:58 pm
" However, O'Donnell may be forced to take a leading role he does not want--that of criminal defendant. [read post]
23 Jul 2008, 6:38 am
(Fitch v. [read post]
23 Jul 2008, 1:32 am
The court also noted that it is not required to follow the DLSE opinion on the matter, citing Murphy v. [read post]
22 Jul 2008, 8:55 pm
" The court also noted that the California Supreme Court "in characterizing violations of California's meal period obligations...repeatedly described it as an obligation not to force employees to work through breaks. [read post]
22 Jul 2008, 6:14 pm
In Brinker Restaurant Corporation, et al. v. [read post]
22 Jul 2008, 6:08 pm
For the first time, a California appellate court has held that employers do not need to force their employees to take meal breaks. [read post]
22 Jul 2008, 2:39 am
The DLSE was forced to beat a hasty retreat, however, when the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Murphy v. [read post]
