Search for: "California v. Perez"
Results 81 - 100
of 255
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Apr 2017, 3:19 pm
Perez, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers California, held in February 2016 that the Department of Labor’s regulations about who can participate in tip pools applies to states like California which do not permit tip credits. [read post]
16 Aug 2023, 1:36 pm
Oklahoma; Due Diligence) Perez and Torres v. [read post]
30 Oct 2008, 9:57 pm
Moreover, in Perez v. [read post]
2 Mar 2011, 2:00 am
Recently, Assembly Member V. [read post]
30 Mar 2018, 6:19 am
In the seminal 1990 case on tip-pooling, Leighton v. [read post]
28 Apr 2017, 3:19 pm
Perez, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers California, held in February 2016 that the Department of Labor’s regulations about who can participate in tip pools applies to states like California which do not permit tip credits. [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 11:15 am
Bringing a challenge to same-sex marriage to federal court in 2010 is a little like trying to get the federal courts to decide Lawrence in 1972 or Loving in 1948, immediately after California's decision in Perez v. [read post]
4 Mar 2008, 11:33 am
George has quoted liberally from passages of Perez v. [read post]
30 Jan 2007, 2:49 pm
Perez (Oregon)PennsylvaniaBMG v. [read post]
18 Apr 2011, 5:04 pm
Since 1988, when California voters approved Proposition 103, the Insurance Commissioner has saved California consumers billions of dollars every year in excessive premiums on their auto, property, and casualty policies. [read post]
18 Apr 2011, 5:04 pm
Since 1988, when California voters approved Proposition 103, the Insurance Commissioner has saved California consumers billions of dollars every year in excessive premiums on their auto, property, and casualty policies. [read post]
20 Feb 2018, 10:46 am
But, as recently affirmed by the Ninth Circuit in Perez v. [read post]
23 Oct 2016, 4:36 am
In Richardson v. [read post]
8 Sep 2018, 5:48 pm
See United States v. [read post]
26 Sep 2023, 12:57 pm
(Perez, Techcrunch). [read post]
20 Jan 2010, 9:53 am
Bank v. [read post]
Updated: Amicus briefs in support of the Proposition 8 respondents and DOMA respondent Edith Windsor
1 Mar 2013, 7:37 am
Perez et al. [read post]
11 Sep 2009, 2:47 am
NidekThe first of these was Perez v. [read post]
25 Nov 2013, 1:42 pm
In Nissho of California, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Dec 2007, 6:01 am
One key provision of USERRA is that an employer may not limit, by contract or otherwise, any rights granted under that statute.In Perez v. [read post]
