Search for: "CALIFORNIA COMPANY v. STATE INDUSTRIAL COURT" Results 601 - 620 of 2,409
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
The law applies to companies who do business in California, though the scope of that definition leads to inclusion of companies around the world (whether they know it or not). [read post]
3 Apr 2020, 3:39 am by Edith Roberts
” Briefly: At Bloomberg Environment, Ellen Gilmer reports that “[m]ajor oil companies are urging the Supreme Court to reverse a recent ruling that allows Baltimore to pursue climate-related claims against the industry in state court. [read post]
31 Mar 2020, 4:31 am by Shannon O'Hare
On 18 February, the US imposed sanctions on Rosneft Trading SA (“RTSA“), a subsidiary of Russia’s state-owned oil producer, Rosneft, and the company’s Chairman, Didier Casimiro. [read post]
17 Mar 2020, 11:01 am by vforberger
So, California is already allowing benefits under its own definitions and application of what able and available means. [read post]
16 Mar 2020, 5:00 am by Beth Graham
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has upheld a nearly $63 million arbitration award that was issued against a California company owned by a foreign corporation. [read post]
4 Mar 2020, 11:31 am by Robert Liles
Notably, several large private dental management companies, such as DentaQuest and Delta Dental also currently serve as dental plan administrators for various state Medicaid Advantage dental plans around the country.[2]  SIUs at DentaQuest, Delta Dental and other dental plan administrators have implemented a number of measures to identify and investigate instances of suspected fraud or improper dental billing practices. [read post]
28 Feb 2020, 4:49 pm by Michael Weil
” As a result of that order, the State of California cannot enforce AB 5 against the trucking industry until the case is decided. [read post]
For more information and for a review of the latest changes to state laws, please check out Seyfarth Shaw’s 2019-2020 edition of its 50 State Desktop Reference. [read post]
App. 5th 1026 (2017), the California Court of Appeals held that, under California law, opioid related claims alleging intentional and negligent misrepresentations did not constitute an “accident” and therefore were not an “occurrence” under the policy. [read post]
18 Feb 2020, 7:43 am by Joy Waltemath
Supreme Court rejected the notion that such time was compensable under the FLSA, California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 7-2001, and its “control clause,” specifically, compelled a different outcome in this class action wage suit brought by Apple retail employees in the state (Frlekin v. [read post]