Search for: "DOMINOS PIZZA LLC" Results 121 - 134 of 134
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Dec 2017, 5:00 pm by Ad Law Defense
Dominos Pizza LLC, No. [read post]
29 Apr 2012, 1:54 pm by Rebecca Shafer, J.D.
    They also take an insightful look into a Florida pizza delivery man who was fired after being robbed. [read post]
25 Jul 2012, 10:45 am by Venkat
Domino's Pizza, Inc., et al., for a similar result under state law in a text spam case brought in Washington.) [read post]
6 Sep 2021, 2:50 pm by Luis Franco
Domino’s Pizza, LLC, No. 17-55504 (9th Cir. 2019) in January 2019, holding that the ADA applies to websites and apps. [read post]
3 May 2019, 6:51 am by Joy Waltemath
The district court recognized that “no binding decision ha[d] addressed the standard applicable to determining whether a franchisor is an employer of a franchisee,” and “in the absence of controlling authority” it applied the standard from Martinez v Combs, with the gloss of Patterson v Domino’s Pizza, LLC . [read post]
5 Jul 2021, 3:45 pm by Eugene Volokh
[I finally have a presentable draft of this article, forthcoming in the Journal of Free Speech Law; I'll be posting excerpts over the next couple of weeks.] [read post]
14 Sep 2022, 7:45 am by Eugene Volokh
[Jack Goldsmith and I will have an article out about the Dormant Commerce Clause, geolocation, and state regulations of Internet transactions in the Texas Law Review early next year, and I'm serializing it here. [read post]
30 Mar 2022, 7:40 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Boston Pads, LLC, 471 Mass. 566 (2015), the Federal District Court found that the ICL did not apply to a franchisor / franchisee relationship because “there is an ‘inherent conflict” between Prong A which requires the “worker” be “free from control in connection with the performance of the service” and the FTC Franchise Rule which contemplates a franchisor will “exert or [have] authority to exert a significant degree of control over the… [read post]
30 Mar 2022, 7:40 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Boston Pads, LLC, 471 Mass. 566 (2015), the Federal District Court found that the ICL did not apply to a franchisor / franchisee relationship because “there is an ‘inherent conflict” between Prong A which requires the “worker” be “free from control in connection with the performance of the service” and the FTC Franchise Rule which contemplates a franchisor will “exert or [have] authority to exert a significant degree of control over the… [read post]