Search for: "Arthur Andersen LLP"
Results 141 - 160
of 180
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Oct 2017, 10:12 am
See Shamoun & Norman, LLP v. [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 1:16 pm
McGladry & Pullen, LLP, 2012 WL 1088274 (7th Cir. [read post]
26 Jan 2022, 3:20 pm
’” Arthur Andersen LLP v. [read post]
26 Apr 2019, 9:53 am
UTSW DVA Healthcare, LLP, No. 16-0006 (Tex. [read post]
1 Sep 2009, 3:08 pm
Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal.4th 937 (2008). [read post]
11 May 2020, 10:57 am
• “[W]e recognize that the base lodestar figure amounts for most of the relevant Arthur Andersen(30) considerations. [read post]
11 Jan 2008, 6:01 pm
ARTHUR ANDERSEN, LLP This case presents the following issues: (1) Is a non-competition agreement between an employer and an employee that prohibits the employee from performing services for former clients invalid under Business and Professions Code section 16600, unless it falls within the statutory or judicially-created trade secrets exceptions to the statute? [read post]
12 Apr 2015, 2:45 pm
Arthur Andersen LLP, 189 P.3d 285 (Cal. 2008), where the California supreme court “rejected a proposed rule—apparently suggested by earlier California cases and extended by the Ninth Circuit—‘that a mere limitation on an employee’s ability to practice his or her vocation would be permissible under section 16600, as long as it was reasonably based’. [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 10:31 am
Goyal, CA-9, No. 08-10436, December 10, 2010).In a concurring opinion, Chief Judge Kozinski called the instant case one of a string of recent cases in which courts have found that federal prosecutors overreached by trying to stretch criminal law beyond its proper bounds, citing Arthur Andersen LLP v. [read post]
15 Apr 2015, 8:55 am
Arthur Andersen LLP, 189 P.3d 285 (Cal. 2008); City of Oakland v. [read post]
12 Apr 2015, 2:45 pm
Arthur Andersen LLP, 189 P.3d 285 (Cal. 2008), where the California supreme court “rejected a proposed rule—apparently suggested by earlier California cases and extended by the Ninth Circuit—‘that a mere limitation on an employee’s ability to practice his or her vocation would be permissible under section 16600, as long as it was reasonably based’. [read post]
3 Nov 2023, 7:11 am
Arthur Andersen, LLP 44 Cal. 4th 937 (2008), which held that California’s existing noncompete statute, Section 16600 of the Business Professions Code, prohibits even narrowly drawn noncompetition agreements unless the agreement falls within a statutory exception. [read post]
23 Mar 2020, 11:05 am
Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal. 4th 937, 946-47 (2008). [read post]
20 Apr 2015, 11:37 am
Arthur Andersen LLP, 189 P.3d 285 (Cal. 2008), where the California supreme court “rejected a proposed rule—apparently suggested by earlier California cases and extended by the Ninth Circuit—‘that a mere limitation on an employee’s ability to practice his or her vocation would be permissible under section 16600, as long as it was reasonably based’. [read post]
13 Aug 2010, 12:19 pm
Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal.4th 937, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 282, 189 P.3d 285, 292-93 (Cal.2008) (finding no waiver of statutory right to indemnity for claims resulting from the employees' acts within the scope of employment, even though release employee was asked to sign referred to waiver of “any and all” claims against employer). [read post]
26 Jan 2011, 7:46 am
., Arthur Andersen LLP v. [read post]
21 Sep 2009, 5:00 pm
Just last term, in Arthur Andersen LLP v. [read post]
8 May 2019, 1:21 pm
, 547 S.W.3d 624, 631 (Tex. 2018) (quoting Arthur Andersen LLP v. [read post]
11 Dec 2010, 3:30 am
See Arthur Andersen LLP v. [read post]
8 Aug 2019, 10:00 am
Arthur Andersen, LLP, recognized that under this broad right, “an employer cannot by contract restrain a former employee from engaging in his or her profession, trade or business, unless the agreement falls within one of the exceptions to the rule” [i.e., concerning the sale of a business, partnership or LLC interest]. [read post]
