Search for: "Uber v. State"
Results 81 - 100
of 738
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 May 2017, 5:02 am
(Bynog v. [read post]
23 Nov 2020, 2:09 pm
Background Regarding Federal Forum Provisions In March 2018, the United States Supreme Court held in Cyan, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Sep 2018, 11:37 am
The new case is called Diva Limousine v. [read post]
28 Feb 2016, 10:44 am
That’s more than state law requires for all drivers, and Uber and others say it’s punishing drivers for their occupation. [read post]
1 Mar 2017, 8:44 am
The plaintiffs failed to convince the court that the fee-splitting and class waiver provisions were unconscionable (Peng v. [read post]
19 May 2021, 9:01 pm
Cal. 2020) (citing statistics that only 2.5% of Uber trips crossed state lines and only 10% of all trips began or ended at airports); Hinson v. [read post]
26 Apr 2016, 6:26 am
CV 13-03826-EMC, and Massachusetts drivers covered by Yucesoy v. [read post]
31 May 2022, 8:44 am
” Case citation: Wilson v. [read post]
6 Jul 2015, 3:55 pm
” To be sure, potentially billions of dollars rest in the hands of these juries, and the stakes are no less in the state matter involving Uber driver Barbara Berwick, where Uber has appealed the regulatory ruling to San Francisco Superior Court. [read post]
6 Jul 2015, 3:55 pm
” To be sure, potentially billions of dollars rest in the hands of these juries, and the stakes are no less in the state matter involving Uber driver Barbara Berwick, where Uber has appealed the regulatory ruling to San Francisco Superior Court. [read post]
13 May 2016, 5:38 am
Cal.), and Massachusetts drivers covered by Yucesoy v. [read post]
10 Oct 2022, 2:42 pm
Bissonnette v. [read post]
11 Aug 2021, 6:54 am
Capriole v. [read post]
11 May 2018, 7:37 pm
The legislation, which effectively enables Uber and Lyft drivers to unionize, drew objections from Uber, Lyft and the Chamber of Commerce— which sued the City of Seattle. [read post]
5 Feb 2017, 12:57 pm
See Hoven v. [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 1:06 pm
Last year, in a high-profile case (and opinion), a Ninth Circuit panel held that A.B. 5 -- passed essentially to try to classify Uber and Lyft drivers as employees rather than independent contractors (something that Proposition 22 later reversed) -- was likely unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause, despite the fact that the standard of review was rational basis. [read post]
7 Jul 2018, 8:00 am
In Cullinane v. [read post]
27 Jun 2015, 6:20 am
Additional Resources: Uber Driver Is An Employee, Not An Independent Contractor, Rules California Labor Official, June 17, 2015, Huffington Post More Blog Entries: Arlington v. [read post]
11 Dec 2015, 12:40 pm
The court cited Iskanian v. [read post]
29 Mar 2018, 7:07 am
The district court’s judgment in favor of Uber and against the drivers, the Philadelphia Taxi Association, and more than 80 individual taxicab companies was affirmed (Philadelphia Taxi Association, Inc. v. [read post]
