Search for: "Action Communications Inc" Results 7221 - 7240 of 10,900
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Nov 2013, 8:58 am by Joy Waltemath
Consequently, the court did not need to resolve whether the technicians fell within the outside sales exemption, or whether the company owner was individually liable as a statutory employer, before finding the company was exempt from the statute’s overtime provisions and granting summary judgment in its favor on the technicians’ class action wage claims (Jones v Tucker Communications, Inc, November 18, 2013, Treadwell, M). [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 4:04 pm by Abbott & Kindermann
San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 596. [read post]
22 Aug 2013, 4:00 am by Administrator
Inc.,[8] which had different facts to the case in point, and also emphasized the decision in Evans v. [read post]
6 Jan 2014, 11:20 pm by Kevin LaCroix
Supreme Court’s 1988 decision in Basic, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Sep 2024, 11:39 am by Kevin LaCroix
Background Back9 Network, Inc. was a multimedia company for golf fans. [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 9:34 am by Eugene Volokh
We know that (again, oversimplifying a bit) because these are basically the facts of Bantam Books, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Oct 2008, 4:10 pm
., Inc., 144 Cal.App.4th 824, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 118 (2006), a case involving express warranties that had just been decided in October, 2006. [read post]
11 Jul 2007, 1:01 am
ALM Privacy Policy / Contact Us © 2007 ALM Properties, Inc. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 1:24 pm by WIMS
GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental ProfessionalsWaste Information & Management Services, Inc. [read post]
9 Mar 2007, 6:49 am
Aon Consulting delivers integrated consulting solutions to help clients with employee benefits, human resources outsourcing, compensation, communication and management consulting. [read post]
27 Apr 2015, 11:34 am
The Commission decided in favor of Baker, but on Monday, in Hands on Originals, Inc. v. [read post]