Search for: "State California v. Superior Court"
Results 941 - 960
of 3,615
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Sep 2011, 10:57 am
The decision from California's First District Court of Appeal in Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association v. [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 3:14 pm
Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal held that while an employer is required to "provide" to non-exempt employees at least one unpaid, duty-free meal period of at least 30 minutes each workday of more than 6 hours, the obligation to "provide" required meal periods means to make the required meal periods available and not to ensure that employees take all required meal periods. [read post]
14 Feb 2012, 8:06 am
Superior Court, 10 Cal. [read post]
30 Dec 2010, 5:51 pm
According to California Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer Fitch Inc., Standard and Poor’s parent (MHP) McGraw-Hill Companies Inc., Fitch, Inc., and Moody's Corp. [read post]
18 Feb 2010, 4:04 pm
AndreAgain and again, California appellate courts have held various features of employment arbitration agreements to be unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.On February 18, 2010, in Suh v. [read post]
5 Nov 2020, 8:38 am
The bill codified the court decision Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 12:53 pm
On April 27, 2011, the United States Supreme Court released its opinion in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
12 Dec 2017, 6:46 am
Seyfarth Synopsis: In Ellis v. [read post]
23 May 2011, 7:30 am
Superior Court Judge Ernest H. [read post]
3 Jun 2011, 10:02 am
The court relied on the recent very significant appellate decision Kwikset v. [read post]
13 Oct 2011, 11:57 am
CTE sought dismissal on the grounds the state court lacked personal jurisdiction. [read post]
17 Feb 2015, 9:35 am
In 2012, the California Supreme Court issued its highly-anticipated opinion in Brinker Restaurant Corporation, et al. v. [read post]
23 Sep 2019, 11:38 am
As we have previously reported, in April 2018, the California Supreme Court issued a sweeping ruling in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Oct 2014, 6:17 am
Thus, the court found that plaintiffs had satisfied predominance and superiority under Rule 23(b)(3) and granted plaintiff’s motion for class certification with respect to all states but West Virginia. [read post]
29 Jan 2013, 11:37 am
Superior Ct. [read post]
1 Dec 2010, 10:10 am
v. [read post]
1 Sep 2016, 11:26 am
” Further, the footnote expressly states, as held in Gordon v. [read post]
17 Apr 2012, 12:53 pm
In State Building & Construction Trades Council of California v. [read post]
22 Aug 2011, 11:10 am
NCS Healthcare, Inc., 818 A.2d 914 (Del. 2003), and instead relied upon the reasoning of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Jewel Companies, Inc. v. [read post]
