Search for: "Murphy v. Cole" Results 81 - 100 of 130
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Apr 2007, 11:46 am
"On Additional Hour of Pay" under California Labor Code Section 226.7 Constitutes Wage or Premium Pay Subject to Three-Year Statute of Limitations Period, not a Penalty Subject to One-Year Limitations Period, California Supreme Court Holds In a case that will have a substantial and immediate impact on labor law class action cases, the California Supreme Court today issued its long-awaited decision in Murphy v. [read post]
3 Aug 2007, 10:35 am
Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 40 Cal.4th 1094 (2007), White v. [read post]
24 May 2018, 4:11 am by Edith Roberts
” For The New York Times, Melina Delcik offers an inside look at how the Times covered this term’s sports-betting case, Murphy v. [read post]
26 Oct 2020, 3:24 pm by Michael Campbell and Allison Cheffer
App. 4th 864 (2013) (employees paid on a piece-rate basis must still be compensated for time spent on rest breaks) and Murphy v. [read post]
25 Nov 2007, 11:52 am
Gregory ValenzaThe Daily Journal2 November 2007REST BREAK AND MEAL PERIOD CLAIMS AFTER MURPHY V. [read post]
28 Apr 2017, 6:21 am by Eliot Kim
Finally, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines Artemio V. [read post]
20 Mar 2008, 1:30 pm
[Murphy v Kenneth Cole Productions, 40 Cal.4th 1094 (2007)], but in certain cases, a 1 year filing deadline could apply. [read post]
31 Jul 2014, 6:05 am by Amy Howe
In The New York Review of Books, David Cole reviews three recent books on the Roberts Court – Uncertain Justice (by Laurence Tribe and former SCOTUSblog contributor Joshua Matz), In the Balance (by Mark Tushnet), and Scalia (by Bruce Murphy) – and concludes that “what most defines the Roberts Court may be its hostility to courts themselves. [read post]