Search for: "Murphy v. Cole" Results 61 - 80 of 152
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Nov 2010, 3:42 pm by Matt C. Bailey
  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]
29 Oct 2010, 9:18 am by Steven G. Pearl
The answer to both questions is no.A few years ago, when we were all waiting for a decision in Murphy v. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 9:29 pm by HumaRashid
Men have it easy compared to women: they don’t have to ponder the great Pantsuit v. [read post]
26 Feb 2009, 7:00 am
Richard Bagdasarian, Inc. 2008 WL 888524,  one of the penalty/wage cases that was a companion case to Murphy v Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007) 40 C4th 1094, and checked to see if it was still pending. [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]
31 Oct 2008, 9:31 pm
Court" and then published this analysis: REST BREAK AND MEAL PERIOD CLAIMS AFTER MURPHY V. [read post]
1 Aug 2008, 10:21 am by Rob
  To my knowledge this specific issue has not been address since Murphy v. [read post]