Search for: "White v. Superior Products, Inc."
Results 61 - 80
of 121
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Dec 2011, 7:12 am
Microsoft Corporation and Sun-Rype Products Ltd. v. [read post]
25 Dec 2011, 11:54 am
Microsoft Corporation and Sun-Rype Products Ltd. v. [read post]
29 Dec 2011, 12:12 pm
Superior Court, addressing how to interpret the administrative exemption under California law. [read post]
31 Oct 2016, 2:02 pm
Enquirer, Inc. (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 991, 1009; see also Frommoethelydo v. [read post]
15 Feb 2011, 7:06 am
To paraphrase only slightly Feist Publications, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Feb 2008, 10:46 am
The leading case is Kemp v. [read post]
15 Aug 2008, 6:13 pm
Inc. [read post]
8 Aug 2008, 6:13 pm
Inc. [read post]
29 Nov 2008, 11:47 am
Hillcrest Hospice, Inc., No. 08-11626 (11th Cir. [read post]
4 Jan 2022, 3:00 am
(C071785; 39 Cal.App.5th 708; Yolo County Superior Court; CVCV091258.) [read post]
16 Aug 2009, 9:51 pm
The Court therefore enhanced damages against Microsoft by an additional $40,000,000 to the jury award making a total of $240,000,000 to be paid to i4i. i4i's motion for a permanent injunction prohibiting the selling of any Microsoft Word 2003 and 2007 products was granted after applying the four factor test provided in eBay Inc v MercExchange (2006), i.e. tha [read post]
13 Jun 2022, 1:01 am
In 1940, he established the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. [read post]
9 Jun 2012, 5:13 am
FHP Associates Inc., decided by the Hampden County Superior Court. [read post]
5 Feb 2021, 8:32 am
Borello & Sons, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 1:26 pm
The prior published opinion in this case, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Sep 2009, 1:47 pm
(Auburndale, MA; Shirley White, Pre [read post]
31 Jan 2019, 11:34 am
In re Silica Products Liab. [read post]
8 Jul 2013, 9:01 pm
Once she was hired, she questioned Phillip Keiser, Nassar’s immediate superior and her subordinate, about Nassar’s productivity and work ethic. [read post]
18 May 2018, 3:56 am
Indian Head, Inc., 486 U.S. 492, 503 (1988). [read post]
25 Jun 2023, 10:54 am
"[16] But Claiborne Hardware had no occasion to decide whether a person's not dealing with someone based on that someone's race was itself protected by the First Amendment, because it was clear that Mississippi law did not prohibit such private choices not to deal.[17] Under Mississippi law, whites could generally refuse to deal with blacks, and blacks could refuse to deal with whites. [read post]
